TB9-16636

TB9-16636

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the Appellant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, a serious possibility of persecution in Hyderabad because he did not identify agents with the capacity or history to locate him outside Kolkata; corroborative affidavits lacked probative weight; objective country evidence did not show Hyderabad to be unsafe for Muslims; both prongs of the IFA test were met and therefore the refugee protection claim fails.

Citation
TB9-16636
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From a Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Rejection / Appeal Heard on the Record; Reasons and Disposition Issued by RAD Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing Threshold, Credibility and Corroboration, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status Admissibility of New Evidence Oral Hearing Threshold Credibility and Corroboration +1 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From a Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Rejection / Appeal Heard on the Record; Reasons and Disposition Issued by RAD Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection under IRPA
  2. 2 Whether Hyderabad constitutes a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for the Appellant
  3. 3 Whether new documentary evidence should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the Appellant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, a serious possibility of persecution in Hyderabad because he did not identify agents with the capacity or history to locate him outside Kolkata; corroborative affidavits lacked probative weight; objective country evidence did not show Hyderabad to be unsafe for Muslims; both prongs of the IFA test were met and therefore the refugee protection claim fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • RAD admitted five specified newspaper articles and one affidavit as new evidence and rejected specified other articles and reports