MC1-12377

MC1-12377

Although the RPD erred in assessing prospective risk in Ludhiana, the appellants failed to rebut the existence of a viable, reasonable internal flight alternative in Mumbai or Bengaluru on a balance of probabilities: there is no persuasive evidence they are persons of interest in state databases or that their persecutors would locate or pursue them there, and relocation would not be unduly harsh given the appellants' skills and religious identity; accordingly the RAD confirms the RPD's ultimate decision to dismiss protection claims.

Citation
MC1-12377
Parties
Appellant Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Appellant Spouse: XXXX XXXX; Appellant Child: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (final)
Outcome
Appeal denied; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Findings, Gender Based Persecution, State Protection, Prospective Risk, Police Databases and Tenant Verification (cctns)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Findings Gender Based Persecution State Protection +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Designated Representative

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Spouse

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Child

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants face a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture if returned to Ludhiana, Punjab
  2. 2 Whether the appellants can access a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Mumbai or Bengaluru
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings and assessment of prospective risk, including the effect of omissions in the BOC update

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RPD erred in assessing prospective risk in Ludhiana, the appellants failed to rebut the existence of a viable, reasonable internal flight alternative in Mumbai or Bengaluru on a balance of probabilities: there is no persuasive evidence they are persons of interest in state databases or that their persecutors would locate or pursue them there, and relocation would not be unduly harsh given the appellants' skills and religious identity; accordingly the RAD confirms the RPD's ultimate decision to dismiss protection claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal denied; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection