MB5-01285

MB5-01285

The RAD confirms the RPD: the appellants would have a viable internal flight alternative in Delhi or Mumbai because the risk that criminal actors would locate and harm them there is not a serious possibility based on country conditions and administrative realities (tenant verification is not routinely effective or likely to result in disclosure), and relocation would not entail undue hardship; therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB5-01285
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision Rendered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Non State Actors, Tenant Verification, NRI Status
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment State Protection Non State Actors Tenant Verification +1 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision Rendered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Delhi or Mumbai constitute a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for the appellants
  2. 2 Whether appellants' credibility findings undermine the IFA analysis
  3. 3 Whether state or state‑tolerated agents could reasonably be expected to locate and harm appellants in IFA locations

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD: the appellants would have a viable internal flight alternative in Delhi or Mumbai because the risk that criminal actors would locate and harm them there is not a serious possibility based on country conditions and administrative realities (tenant verification is not routinely effective or likely to result in disclosure), and relocation would not entail undue hardship; therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection