MB4-03165

MB4-03165

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified by documentary and testimonial inconsistencies and lack of case-specific corroboration, and because, alternatively, a viable internal flight alternative to Delhi exists (both prongs satisfied), therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB4-03165
Parties
Principal Appellant: Mr. XXXX XXXX; Appellant (spouse): Ms. XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Convention Refugee Status, Standard of Review/deference, Corroborative Evidence, Sexual Assault Allegation
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Convention Refugee Status Standard of Review/deference Corroborative Evidence Sexual Assault Allegation

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

Parties

Mr. XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

Ms. XXXX XXXX

Appellant (spouse)

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative to Delhi is reasonable and viable
  3. 3 Applicable standard of review for RAD intervention in RPD factual and mixed questions

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified by documentary and testimonial inconsistencies and lack of case-specific corroboration, and because, alternatively, a viable internal flight alternative to Delhi exists (both prongs satisfied), therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division decision dated July 17, 2014 confirmed