VC2-02686

VC2-02686

Although the RAD found the RPD erred by not applying the Gender Guideline, that error was not determinative because the RPD's central findings—that the PA's testimony contained unexplained inconsistencies, that evidence about M's means and motivation to locate the appellants was speculative, and that viable, not unduly harsh IFAs existed in Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru—are supported on a balance of probabilities; therefore the appellants fail to discharge the burden to show no viable IFA and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
VC2-02686
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Gender Guideline Application, Psychological Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Coparcenary Property
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Administrative Law Gender Based Persecution Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Gender Guideline Application Psychological Evidence +2 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Viability of internal flight alternative (IFA)
  2. 2 Credibility of Principal Appellant regarding communication with ex-husband and parents
  3. 3 Failure to apply Gender Guideline in credibility assessment

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RAD found the RPD erred by not applying the Gender Guideline, that error was not determinative because the RPD's central findings—that the PA's testimony contained unexplained inconsistencies, that evidence about M's means and motivation to locate the appellants was speculative, and that viable, not unduly harsh IFAs existed in Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru—are supported on a balance of probabilities; therefore the appellants fail to discharge the burden to show no viable IFA and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection