TB9-16646

TB9-16646

The RAD upheld the RPD's finding that viable and reasonable internal flight alternatives existed in Chennai, Kolkata or Bangalore; the Appellants failed to demonstrate state‑wide persecution or that they would be traced and arrested in those cities, the proffered new evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA because it predated the RPD decision and was not reasonably unavailable, and the RPD reasonably assessed personal circumstances (including that the Canadian‑born child's medical issues were not argued or evidenced before the RPD). Consequently the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed.

Citation
TB9-16646
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (associate): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Refugee Protection Division confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Credibility Findings, Child Medical Welfare in IFA Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Credibility Findings Child Medical Welfare in IFA Assessment

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (associate)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a viable and reasonable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) existed (Chennai, Kolkata, Bangalore)
  2. 2 Whether the state was the agent of persecution such that no IFA is possible
  3. 3 Whether new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA criteria and related tests (newness, credibility, relevance)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD's finding that viable and reasonable internal flight alternatives existed in Chennai, Kolkata or Bangalore; the Appellants failed to demonstrate state‑wide persecution or that they would be traced and arrested in those cities, the proffered new evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA because it predated the RPD decision and was not reasonably unavailable, and the RPD reasonably assessed personal circumstances (including that the Canadian‑born child's medical issues were not argued or evidenced before the RPD). Consequently the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Refugee Protection Division confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • New evidence not admitted under s.110(4) IRPA because it predated the RPD decision and was not shown to be unavailable at the time of the RPD rejection