VB9-10255

VB9-10255

The RPD erred by finding a viable IFA in Delhi or Mumbai; given the Principal Appellant's SADA membership, history of arrest and police monitoring, corroborative country documentation (including an updated NDP) showing authorities target Khalistan supporters nationwide, and systems (tenant verification, Aadhaar) that increase the likelihood of detection, the Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution throughout India and state protection is not available; therefore they meet the definition of Convention refugees and the RAD substitutes the RPD decision accordingly.

Citation
VB9-10255
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad Substituted RPD Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision overturned; RAD substitutes decision finding Appellants are Convention refugees
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, State Protection, Persecution, Relocation
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status State Protection Persecution Relocation

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad Substituted RPD Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a viable internal flight alternative exists in Delhi or Mumbai
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution throughout India
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available given agents of persecution are state authorities

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred by finding a viable IFA in Delhi or Mumbai; given the Principal Appellant's SADA membership, history of arrest and police monitoring, corroborative country documentation (including an updated NDP) showing authorities target Khalistan supporters nationwide, and systems (tenant verification, Aadhaar) that increase the likelihood of detection, the Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution throughout India and state protection is not available; therefore they meet the definition of Convention refugees and the RAD substitutes the RPD decision accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision overturned; RAD substitutes decision finding Appellants are Convention refugees

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Substituted decision: Appellants are Convention refugees