TC2-15361

TC2-15361

The RAD dismissed the appeal: the Male Associate Appellant is not excluded under Article 1F(b) because the Minister failed to meet the threshold of 'serious reasons for considering' given evidence that the matter was primarily civil, but all Appellants are excluded from refugee protection by the combined effect of Article 1E and s.98 IRPA because their OCI status affords them substantially the same rights as Indian nationals and internal relocation to Christian-majority Indian states removes the risk on a balance of probabilities.

Citation
TC2-15361
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant; Appellant: Male Associate Appellant; Appellant: Female Associate Appellant
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Appellants excluded from refugee protection by the combined effect of Article 1E of the 1951 Convention and section 98 of the IRPA; Male Associate not excluded under Article 1F(b).
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Article 1 F(b) Exclusion, OCI Status, Burden of Proof, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Credibility and Well Founded Fear
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Law Administrative Law Article 1 E Exclusion Article 1 F(b) Exclusion OCI Status Burden of Proof +3 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant

Appellant

Male Associate Appellant

Appellant

Female Associate Appellant

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants are excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E of the 1951 Refugee Convention and s.98 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the Male Associate Appellant is excluded under Article 1F(b) for a serious non-political crime
  3. 3 Whether OCI status affords surrogate protection (internal relocation) in India

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal: the Male Associate Appellant is not excluded under Article 1F(b) because the Minister failed to meet the threshold of 'serious reasons for considering' given evidence that the matter was primarily civil, but all Appellants are excluded from refugee protection by the combined effect of Article 1E and s.98 IRPA because their OCI status affords them substantially the same rights as Indian nationals and internal relocation to Christian-majority Indian states removes the risk on a balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Appellants excluded from refugee protection by the combined effect of Article 1E of the 1951 Convention and section 98 of the IRPA; Male Associate not excluded under Article 1F(b).

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
  • Findings: Male Associate Appellant not excluded under Article 1F(b); Principal and Female Associate Appellants excluded under Article 1E and s.98 IRPA