VC2-09291

VC2-09291

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found that the appellants failed to establish that the agents of persecution are motivated and capable of finding them in Bengaluru or Mumbai, and that relocation to those cities is reasonable given their personal circumstances; therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
VC2-09291
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Final Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Determination, Risk Assessment Under Section 97 IRPA, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Determination Risk Assessment Under Section 97 IRPA Credibility

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Final Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants have an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Bengaluru or Mumbai
  2. 2 Whether appellants face a serious possibility of persecution or a risk under section 97 of the IRPA if they relocate
  3. 3 Whether the agents of persecution had the motivation to search for the appellants outside their home state

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found that the appellants failed to establish that the agents of persecution are motivated and capable of finding them in Bengaluru or Mumbai, and that relocation to those cities is reasonable given their personal circumstances; therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed