VB9-07817

VB9-07817

On a balance of probabilities the appellants do not face a serious possibility of persecution in Delhi and relocation there would not be unreasonable: the Principal Appellant had a low public profile in AAP, objective evidence shows no attacks on AAP members in Delhi, speculative risks from tenant registration or AADHAAR are unsupported, police are unlikely to coordinate across states absent extreme circumstances, and the Associate Appellant failed to show she would face sexual violence or conditions jeopardizing her life or safety in Delhi; therefore the RPD correctly found a viable IFA and correctly rejected Convention refugee and protection claims.

Citation
VB9-07817
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant; Appellant: Associate Appellant
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (confirming RPD Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, Need for Protection, Gender Related Persecution, Burden of Proof, Reasonableness of Relocation
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status Need for Protection Gender Related Persecution +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant

Appellant

Associate Appellant

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (confirming RPD Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants have a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Delhi
  2. 2 Whether the appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether the Associate Appellant faces gender-related persecution that makes relocation unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

On a balance of probabilities the appellants do not face a serious possibility of persecution in Delhi and relocation there would not be unreasonable: the Principal Appellant had a low public profile in AAP, objective evidence shows no attacks on AAP members in Delhi, speculative risks from tenant registration or AADHAAR are unsupported, police are unlikely to coordinate across states absent extreme circumstances, and the Associate Appellant failed to show she would face sexual violence or conditions jeopardizing her life or safety in Delhi; therefore the RPD correctly found a viable IFA and correctly rejected Convention refugee and protection claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed