TC2-30790

TC2-30790

The RAD dismisses the appeal and affirms the RPD: the Appellant failed to discharge the burden to show Delhi is not a viable IFA because his detentions were extra-judicial and unlikely to have produced CCTNS enrollment or other means for police to locate him; omissions undermine his credibility; Delhi satisfies both prongs of the IFA test; the newly admitted evidence does not show Indian authorities are aware and does not alter the IFA finding; therefore the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TC2-30790
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Credibility Assessment, New Evidence (post Rpd), Imputed Political Opinion, Extra Judicial Detention, CCTNS and Police Databases, Sur Place Claim
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Credibility Assessment New Evidence (post Rpd) Imputed Political Opinion Extra Judicial Detention +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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant has a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Delhi
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant was persecuted or is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection
  3. 3 Credibility of the Appellant given omissions and discrepancies in the Basis of Claim

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismisses the appeal and affirms the RPD: the Appellant failed to discharge the burden to show Delhi is not a viable IFA because his detentions were extra-judicial and unlikely to have produced CCTNS enrollment or other means for police to locate him; omissions undermine his credibility; Delhi satisfies both prongs of the IFA test; the newly admitted evidence does not show Indian authorities are aware and does not alter the IFA finding; therefore the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated September 29, 2022 confirmed