TB5-03542

TB5-03542

RAD confirmed the RPD: the basic facts of assault were accepted but appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the alleged perpetrator posed an ongoing, unavoidable threat or that he could locate or influence authorities in Delhi; Delhi was a realistic and achievable Internal Flight Alternative and tenant verification procedures did not preclude relocation; appellants did not meet the burden to show IFA unreasonable, therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB5-03542
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Appeal Decision (rad Confirmation of Rpd)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Standard of Review / Hybrid Appeal, Designated Representative / Vulnerability Accommodation, Burden of Proof for IFA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Internal Flight Alternative Standard of Review / Hybrid Appeal Designated Representative / Vulnerability Accommodation Burden of Proof for IFA

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Appeal Decision (rad Confirmation of Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Credibility and plausibility of ongoing threats from alleged perpetrator
  3. 3 Existence and reasonableness of an Internal Flight Alternative (Delhi)

Ratio Decidendi

RAD confirmed the RPD: the basic facts of assault were accepted but appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the alleged perpetrator posed an ongoing, unavoidable threat or that he could locate or influence authorities in Delhi; Delhi was a realistic and achievable Internal Flight Alternative and tenant verification procedures did not preclude relocation; appellants did not meet the burden to show IFA unreasonable, therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RAD confirms the RPD decision pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act