VB6-00801

VB6-00801

The RAD confirms the RPD: the appellant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, a personal political profile or conduct that would expose him to a serious possibility of persecution outside Punjab; the proposed IFA (Mumbai) is realistic and reasonable for the appellant; the two proffered articles did not qualify as new evidence under s.110(4) because they were available before the RPD resumption; no oral hearing was required; therefore the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
VB6-00801
Parties
Appellant / Person Subject of Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Admission of New Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Admission of New Evidence Procedural Fairness Standard of Review +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Subject of Appeal

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of new evidence under s.110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  2. 2 Application for an oral hearing under s.110(6)
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists (Mumbai)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD: the appellant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, a personal political profile or conduct that would expose him to a serious possibility of persecution outside Punjab; the proposed IFA (Mumbai) is realistic and reasonable for the appellant; the two proffered articles did not qualify as new evidence under s.110(4) because they were available before the RPD resumption; no oral hearing was required; therefore the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Determination of the RPD confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Act
  • Appeal dismissed