TB8-16731

TB8-16731

The RAD dismissed the appeal because there was insufficient probative evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that the kidnappers were members of the police or security forces and, given the lack of ongoing, targetted interest, the appellants could safely and reasonably relocate to Chittagong; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution nor personal risk warranting protection under the IRPA.

Citation
TB8-16731
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing Request
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Oral Hearing Request

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agents of persecution were members of the police or security forces
  2. 2 Whether there is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Chittagong
  3. 3 Whether new evidence submitted on appeal should be admitted

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because there was insufficient probative evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that the kidnappers were members of the police or security forces and, given the lack of ongoing, targetted interest, the appellants could safely and reasonably relocate to Chittagong; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution nor personal risk warranting protection under the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and Refugee Protection Division decision confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act