TC0-06766

TC0-06766

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellants failed to rebut the presumption of a viable internal flight alternative in Mumbai: the new evidence was admissible but did not impeach credibility or satisfy s.110(6), the hospital report was not authenticated, and on the balance of probabilities there is no serious possibility of persecution nor objective unreasonableness in relocating to Mumbai, therefore the RPD decision that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Citation
TC0-06766
Parties
Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and family; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence and Viability of Internal Flight Alternative (final Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, New Evidence (s.110 Irpa), Standard of Review, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility New Evidence (s.110 Irpa) Standard of Review Country Conditions

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and family

Appellants

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence and Viability of Internal Flight Alternative (final Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA is admissible and justifies an oral hearing under s.110(6)
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether Mumbai is a viable internal flight alternative for the Appellants (two‑prong IFA test)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellants failed to rebut the presumption of a viable internal flight alternative in Mumbai: the new evidence was admissible but did not impeach credibility or satisfy s.110(6), the hospital report was not authenticated, and on the balance of probabilities there is no serious possibility of persecution nor objective unreasonableness in relocating to Mumbai, therefore the RPD decision that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed