MC0-10443

MC0-10443

The RPD erred by failing to adequately assess the serious nature of the accusations and documented involvement of national security agencies; on the balance of probabilities the appellants face a serious possibility of persecution if returned (including likely detection at airports and through inter‑state investigation in terrorism‑linked cases), state protection is unavailable, and therefore no viable internal flight alternative exists; appellants are Convention refugees.

Citation
MC0-10443
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Refugee Appeal Division Reviewing RPD Decision / Decision on Appeal (rad Allowed Appeal and Substituted RPD Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD substituted its decision for the RPD and found the appellants to be Convention refugees
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Persecution, Credibility, Convention Refugee Determination, COVID 19 Impact on Removal
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Criminal Law National Security Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Persecution +3 more

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Refugee Appeal Division Reviewing RPD Decision / Decision on Appeal (rad Allowed Appeal and Substituted RPD Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD correctly found viable internal flight alternatives in Delhi or Mumbai
  2. 2 Whether the nature of the criminal allegations and involvement of national security agencies negate IFA
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available from Punjab police or national security agencies

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred by failing to adequately assess the serious nature of the accusations and documented involvement of national security agencies; on the balance of probabilities the appellants face a serious possibility of persecution if returned (including likely detection at airports and through inter‑state investigation in terrorism‑linked cases), state protection is unavailable, and therefore no viable internal flight alternative exists; appellants are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD substituted its decision for the RPD and found the appellants to be Convention refugees

Orders

  • RAD decision substituted for RPD decision and appellants declared Convention refugees