TC0-10696

TC0-10696

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the Appellants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that New Delhi is not a viable internal flight alternative; the February 2020 riots were a limited incident and the revised NDP did not provide concrete evidence of ongoing risk specific to these Appellants, therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under the IRPA.

Citation
TC0-10696
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Associate: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister: Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Refugee Appeal Division Review of RPD Decision / Reasons and Decision (appeal Denied)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, National Documentation Package, Religious Persecution, Burden of Proof, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative National Documentation Package Religious Persecution Burden of Proof Standard of Review

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Associate

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor

Minister of Immigration

Respondent Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Refugee Appeal Division Review of RPD Decision / Reasons and Decision (appeal Denied)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding New Delhi a viable internal flight alternative (IFA)
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to consider the most recent National Documentation Package (NDP) and whether that omission vitiates its IFA finding
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the Appellants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that New Delhi is not a viable internal flight alternative; the February 2020 riots were a limited incident and the revised NDP did not provide concrete evidence of ongoing risk specific to these Appellants, therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal denied pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated September 2, 2020 is confirmed