MC1-03065

The appellants failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution or a personal risk in Mumbai or Delhi and failed to show that it would be objectively unreasonable to seek refuge there; accordingly the RPD's decision was correct and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation: MC1-03065
Parties: Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court: Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 26 October 2021
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics: Internal Flight Alternative, Persecution, Torture, Risk Assessment, Standard of Review
Source Language: English

Immigration Refugee Law International Protection Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Persecution Torture Risk Assessment +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 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

1 Whether appellants established a serious possibility of persecution or a risk under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA in Mumbai or Delhi
2 Whether the internal flight alternative (IFA) of Mumbai or Delhi was objectively unreasonable
3 Whether the Punjab police would continue to search for or be able to locate the appellants outside Punjab (via CCTNS, tenant verification or family disclosure)

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

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

Orders

Appeal dismissed
Confirmation of the Refugee Protection Division determination