MC1-02978

MC1-02978

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that they would face a serious possibility of persecution, torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment in New Delhi; the RPD did not err in failing to expressly cite Guideline 4 or to designate the female appellant as vulnerable given the record; no new evidence warranted an oral hearing; therefore the IFA in New Delhi is reasonable and the RPD's decision stands.

Citation
MC1-02978
Parties
Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor, Daughter): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (associate, Son): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility and Consistency, Vulnerability and Gender Related Claims, Chairperson's Guideline 4, Standard for Oral Hearing Under IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Credibility and Consistency Vulnerability and Gender Related Claims Chairperson's Guideline 4 +1 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (male)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (female)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor, Daughter)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (associate, Son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding an internal flight alternative (IFA) in New Delhi
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to apply Chairperson's Guideline 4 and to designate the female appellant as vulnerable
  3. 3 Whether new evidence existed to justify an oral hearing under subsection 110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that they would face a serious possibility of persecution, torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment in New Delhi; the RPD did not err in failing to expressly cite Guideline 4 or to designate the female appellant as vulnerable given the record; no new evidence warranted an oral hearing; therefore the IFA in New Delhi is reasonable and the RPD's decision stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Dismissal of the appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division; RPD finding that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed