MC2-13211

MC2-13211

On the balance of probabilities the Appellants failed to discharge their burden to show that there is a serious possibility of persecution in Mumbai or New Delhi and failed to show that relocation there would be unreasonable; local police/INC lacked demonstrated motivation and means to locate them nationwide, the new documentary evidence was inadmissible, and the Gender Guidelines did not alter the IFA outcome — therefore the RPD decision stands and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MC2-13211
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and 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, Gender Based Persecution, State Protection, New Evidence Admissibility, Credibility Assessment, Reasonableness of Relocation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Internal Flight Alternative Gender Based Persecution State Protection New Evidence Admissibility +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Mumbai or New Delhi
  2. 2 Whether the Gender Guidelines were appropriately applied to the AA's gender‑based claim
  3. 3 Whether agents of persecution have the means and motivation to locate the Appellants in the IFA locations

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Appellants failed to discharge their burden to show that there is a serious possibility of persecution in Mumbai or New Delhi and failed to show that relocation there would be unreasonable; local police/INC lacked demonstrated motivation and means to locate them nationwide, the new documentary evidence was inadmissible, and the Gender Guidelines did not alter the IFA outcome — therefore the RPD decision stands and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • New evidence (two academic articles) rejected as inadmissible and request for oral hearing denied