Esheria Canada Case Law
Sign in
Canada Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Canada Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
1 court collection
Last checked

Search and filter Canada case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Canada decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Immigration TC3-39915

TC3-39915

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the Appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that (1) they would face a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFAs — the Punjab police lacked motive and there was no evidence their information would be in national databases (CCTNS) — and (2) relocation to Delhi or Mumbai would be objectively unreasonable; credibility findings (omission of pro‑Khalistan activity) further undermined the claim.

Source excerpt

  • Internal flight alternative
  • Convention refugee determination
  • Credibility findings
  • State actor tracking
  • Relocation reasonableness
Read case analysis
Immigration law MC2-07553

MC2-07553

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

Appellants are credible but failed, on the balance of probabilities, to establish a prospective risk in the proposed internal flight alternative cities because objective evidence and facts demonstrate the principal agents of harm lack ongoing motivation to locate them outside their hometown; relocation to Mérida or Campeche is not objectively unreasonable, therefore the RPD's rejection of refugee protection and person-in-need-of-protection claims is confirmed.

Source excerpt

  • Internal flight alternative
  • Credibility
  • Burden of proof
  • Best interests of the child
  • Nexus to convention
  • Relocation reasonableness
Read case analysis
Immigration TC1-19761

TC1-19761

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

Appeal dismissed because the Appellant failed to satisfy either prong of the IFA test: the evidence does not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the police or RSS have the motivation to search for and pursue him in Chennai or Trivandrum, and relocating to those cities is not unreasonable given his circumstances and the objective evidence; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Source excerpt

  • Internal flight alternative
  • Credibility
  • Convention refugee
  • Protection claim
  • Relocation reasonableness
Read case analysis
Immigration law VC1-06732

VC1-06732

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD concluded the RPD correctly found an IFA in Delhi or Mumbai; the Appellants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Punjab police or others had the means or motivation to pursue them to those IFAs and failed to show relocation there would be unreasonable; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Source excerpt

  • Internal flight alternative
  • Persecution
  • Relocation reasonableness
  • Burden of proof
Read case analysis
Immigration law MC1-03874

MC1-03874

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that agents of harm have an ongoing interest in pursuing them in the proposed internal flight alternatives, and that relocation to Mérida or Mexico City would be objectively unreasonable; accordingly the RPD's determination that the appellants are not refugees or persons in need of protection under ss.96 or 97 of the IRPA is confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a).

Source excerpt

  • Credibility assessment
  • Internal flight alternative (ifa)
  • Standard of review
  • Burden of proof
  • Relocation reasonableness
Read case analysis
Immigration law MC1-00454

MC1-00454

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD reasonably found the Appellant credible but the evidence did not establish that the alleged agents had the means or likelihood to locate or persecute him in New Delhi or Haryana, and relocation to New Delhi was a reasonable IFA; therefore he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Source excerpt

  • Internal flight alternative
  • Credibility assessment
  • Country conditions
  • Standard of proof
  • Relocation reasonableness
Read case analysis
Immigration law VC0-03095

VC0-03095

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The appellant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that her alleged agents of harm had the means or ongoing motivation to locate or persecute her in Guatemala City or Quetzaltenango, and failed to show relocation to those cities would be unreasonable; therefore the RPD correctly found viable IFAs and rejection of the claim is confirmed.

Source excerpt

  • Internal flight alternative
  • Persecution
  • Nexus to refugee convention
  • Credibility
  • Extortion
  • Gang violence
Read case analysis
Immigration law MC0-09745

MC0-09745

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The RPD's decision is correct: the appellant's risk is localized, there is no reliable evidence he is being actively sought nationwide (no FIR, no proof of dissemination or motivation), and relocation to Islamabad or Karachi is reasonable and would avoid a serious possibility of persecution; therefore the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Source excerpt

  • Internal flight alternative
  • Convention refugee determination
  • State protection
  • Credibility
  • Relocation reasonableness
Read case analysis
Immigration law VC0-02510

VC0-02510

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to establish a serious possibility that his persecutors would find and harm him in Delhi or Mumbai and failed to rebut the presumption that a safe and reasonable internal flight alternative exists there, so the RPD correctly refused refugee protection and designation as a person in need of protection.

Source excerpt

  • Internal flight alternative
  • Persecution risk
  • State protection
  • Credibility
  • Mental health evidence
  • Relocation reasonableness
Read case analysis
Immigration TC0-04647

TC0-04647

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because, applying the Rasaratnam two‑prong IFA test under section 97 and the balance of probabilities standard, the Appellant failed to establish that his agents of harm had the means or motivation to locate him in Abuja, Benin City or Port Harcourt, and relocation to those cities would not be objectively unreasonable given his skills and history; therefore viable IFAs exist and protection is not warranted.

Source excerpt

  • Internal flight alternative
  • Section 97 protection claims
  • Standard of proof
  • Relocation reasonableness
  • Credibility assessment
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Canada decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.