TC0-09078

TC0-09078

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found material credibility deficiencies and reasonably concluded that the Appellants would face no more than a mere possibility of persecution from the state and that a viable internal flight alternative exists in Ahmedabad, Mumbai or Kolkata; the family/honour‑based threat was not credible given the Appellants' years living in India without harm; consequently they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TC0-09078
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Final Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Persecution (political Opinion), Persecution (family/honour Based), New Evidence Admission, Precedent Value of RAD Decisions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Persecution (political Opinion) Persecution (family/honour Based) +2 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Final Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants are persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Kolkata) exists

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found material credibility deficiencies and reasonably concluded that the Appellants would face no more than a mere possibility of persecution from the state and that a viable internal flight alternative exists in Ahmedabad, Mumbai or Kolkata; the family/honour‑based threat was not credible given the Appellants' years living in India without harm; consequently they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and Refugee Protection Division decision upheld
  • Two post‑decision news articles admitted as new evidence but found not to alter the outcome