TC2-14125

TC2-14125

The appeal is dismissed because on review the Appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they face a serious possibility of persecution or a s.97 risk in Mumbai, Delhi or Jaipur, or that relocation to those cities would be objectively unreasonable; the RPD's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that viable IFAs exist are upheld because there is insufficient evidence that the Appellants' names are recorded in police databases or that the uncle/Punjab police have the means or motive to trace them.

Citation
TC2-14125
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Spouse: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (convention Refugee/protection) / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division)
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 Assessment, Burden of Proof, Identity Databases (cctns/aadhaar), Tenant Verification
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Burden of Proof Identity Databases (cctns/aadhaar) Tenant Verification

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Spouse

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (convention Refugee/protection) / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD made an unreasonable credibility finding
  2. 2 Whether the RPD misapplied the internal flight alternative (IFA) criteria
  3. 3 Whether an IFA in Mumbai, Delhi or Jaipur is viable

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because on review the Appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they face a serious possibility of persecution or a s.97 risk in Mumbai, Delhi or Jaipur, or that relocation to those cities would be objectively unreasonable; the RPD's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that viable IFAs exist are upheld because there is insufficient evidence that the Appellants' names are recorded in police databases or that the uncle/Punjab police have the means or motive to trace them.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Dismissal of appeal
  • Confirmation of Refugee Protection Division decision that Appellants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection