2022 RLLR 106

2022 RLLR 106

Even assuming the claimant's allegations are true, the proposed IFAs were not viable because, although the claimant did not establish a realistic risk of being found by her ex-husband throughout India, relocation would be unduly harsh given her age, lack of male or social support, lack of education or work history, and documented systemic barriers faced by single women in India; therefore the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA.

Citation
2022 RLLR 106
Parties
Claimant: XXXX
Court
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Determination by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim accepted; claimant found to be a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee, Relocation, Credibility, Unreasonableness Test
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Gender Based Violence Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Relocation Credibility +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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Determination by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in New Delhi, Bengaluru or Mumbai
  2. 2 Whether the claimant would be persecuted by her ex-husband throughout India
  3. 3 Whether relocation to an IFA would be unduly harsh given claimant's personal circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Even assuming the claimant's allegations are true, the proposed IFAs were not viable because, although the claimant did not establish a realistic risk of being found by her ex-husband throughout India, relocation would be unduly harsh given her age, lack of male or social support, lack of education or work history, and documented systemic barriers faced by single women in India; therefore the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim accepted; claimant found to be a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Claim accepted and protection granted as a Convention refugee