MB8-05540

MB8-05540

Applying correctness review, the RAD found the RPD did not err: the appellant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, a well-founded fear or personalized risk if relocated to Satkhira or Faridpur; a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative exists; therefore the RPD's refusal of refugee protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA is confirmed.

Citation
MB8-05540
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee under section 96 nor a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Well Founded Fear, Persecution, Gender Related Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Well Founded Fear Persecution Gender Related Persecution

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (Satkhira and Faridpur) existed
  3. 3 Whether the appellant established a well-founded fear of persecution or a personalized risk

Ratio Decidendi

Applying correctness review, the RAD found the RPD did not err: the appellant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, a well-founded fear or personalized risk if relocated to Satkhira or Faridpur; a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative exists; therefore the RPD's refusal of refugee protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee under section 96 nor a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA