MB9-30624

MB9-30624

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a s.97(1) protection risk in the proposed internal flight alternatives (Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata) and failed to show that relocation to those cities would be objectively unreasonable; consequently an IFA exists and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Citation
MB9-30624
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX; Appellant Associate (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Associate (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Risk Assessment, Convention Refugee, Protection Claim
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Risk Assessment Convention Refugee Protection Claim

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Associate (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Associate (minor)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants face a serious possibility of persecution or a risk under s.97(1) of the IRPA in proposed IFAs (Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata)
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative exists
  3. 3 Whether the appellants' credibility and prospective risk assessment were properly evaluated

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a s.97(1) protection risk in the proposed internal flight alternatives (Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata) and failed to show that relocation to those cities would be objectively unreasonable; consequently an IFA exists and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed by Refugee Appeal Division
  • Refugee Protection Division determination confirmed