MC1-05698

MC1-05698

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellants failed to show, on a balance of probabilities, that they would face a serious possibility of persecution or section 97 harm in Mumbai, Kolkata or Bangalore and failed to show relocation to those cities would be objectively unreasonable; risks are localized to Punjab and risks from smugglers are speculative, and the new evidence admitted does not alter the IFA finding.

Citation
MC1-05698
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Findings, New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Oral Hearing (s.110(6) Irpa), State Complicity and Police Misconduct
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Findings New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Oral Hearing (s.110(6) Irpa) State Complicity and Police Misconduct

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants have a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in India
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants face a real risk of persecution or section 97 harm from Punjab or Delhi police
  3. 3 Whether the risk from alleged smugglers is credible or speculative

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellants failed to show, on a balance of probabilities, that they would face a serious possibility of persecution or section 97 harm in Mumbai, Kolkata or Bangalore and failed to show relocation to those cities would be objectively unreasonable; risks are localized to Punjab and risks from smugglers are speculative, and the new evidence admitted does not alter the IFA finding.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision confirmed that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection