MB5-01525

MB5-01525

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the evidence showed the police interest was primarily extortionate, there was no arrest warrant, and practical and technological limits on police information-sharing in India (including tenant verification and POLNET shortcomings) made relocation to Delhi or Mumbai reasonable and safe, so the appellants do not meet the tests in ss.96 or 97 IRPA and the RPD determination is upheld under s.111(1)(a).

Citation
MB5-01525
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (decision on RPD Determination)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Country Conditions Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Country Conditions Evidence

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (decision on RPD Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Viability of Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) to Delhi or Mumbai
  2. 2 Credibility and plausibility of the Appellants' account
  3. 3 Risk of persecution by state or non-state actors

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the evidence showed the police interest was primarily extortionate, there was no arrest warrant, and practical and technological limits on police information-sharing in India (including tenant verification and POLNET shortcomings) made relocation to Delhi or Mumbai reasonable and safe, so the appellants do not meet the tests in ss.96 or 97 IRPA and the RPD determination is upheld under s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Determination of the Refugee Protection Division dated March 6, 2015 confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act