VB9-10036

VB9-10036

The RAD concluded the RPD did not err: appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the persecutor had both the motivation and the ability to locate them in Delhi or Mumbai, documentary evidence undermined claims that police/databases would inevitably reveal their location, and conditions in Delhi and Mumbai did not make those IFAs unreasonable; accordingly there was no risk under s.97(1) IRPA and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
VB9-10036
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Associate: XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Standard of Review, Procedural Fairness, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Nexus to Convention Grounds Standard of Review Procedural Fairness Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Associate

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Delhi or Mumbai
  2. 2 Whether appellants face a prospective risk within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the persecutor has the interest and motivation to pursue appellants across India

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD did not err: appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the persecutor had both the motivation and the ability to locate them in Delhi or Mumbai, documentary evidence undermined claims that police/databases would inevitably reveal their location, and conditions in Delhi and Mumbai did not make those IFAs unreasonable; accordingly there was no risk under s.97(1) IRPA and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and the Refugee Protection Division determination confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.