MB7-24787

MB7-24787

Although the RAD found the RPD's adverse credibility findings to be incorrect after independent review, on balance the evidence showed that the appellants had a safe and reasonable internal flight alternative in India (particularly Mumbai) because interstate police communication and tenant verification could reveal their location but there was not a reasonable likelihood that Punjab police would pursue their return or tip off the uncle; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision is confirmed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Citation
MB7-24787
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Honour Killing, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment State Protection Honour Killing Standard of Review

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were the RPD credibility findings reasonable?
  2. 2 Did the appellants have an internal flight alternative in India (Mumbai/Delhi)?
  3. 3 Would Punjab police be able or willing to locate and return the appellants from the proposed IFAs?

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RAD found the RPD's adverse credibility findings to be incorrect after independent review, on balance the evidence showed that the appellants had a safe and reasonable internal flight alternative in India (particularly Mumbai) because interstate police communication and tenant verification could reveal their location but there was not a reasonable likelihood that Punjab police would pursue their return or tip off the uncle; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision is confirmed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated November 13, 2017, confirmed