TC2-36498

TC2-36498

The determinative issue was internal flight alternative. The RAD found the appellants failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that they would face a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture in Mumbai and failed to show relocation to Mumbai would be unreasonable; the affidavit was not new evidence under s.110(4). Therefore the RPD decision was correct and the appeal is dismissed, confirming appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TC2-36498
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (reasons and Final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Findings, New Evidence Admissibility, Protection Claim Under S.111(1)(a) IRPA, Torture and Ill‑treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Findings New Evidence Admissibility Protection Claim Under S.111(1)(a) IRPA +1 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (reasons and Final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants qualify as Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether appellants are persons in need of protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether a safe and reasonable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Mumbai

Ratio Decidendi

The determinative issue was internal flight alternative. The RAD found the appellants failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that they would face a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture in Mumbai and failed to show relocation to Mumbai would be unreasonable; the affidavit was not new evidence under s.110(4). Therefore the RPD decision was correct and the appeal is dismissed, confirming appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed