2 total
Judicial review of RAD decision dismissed; finding of available IFA in India upheld.
The applicants, citizens of India, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal.
The RAD confirmed the Refugee Protection Division's finding that the applicants had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) elsewhere in India, concluding that they faced no serious possibility of persecution by their village sarpanch or police in the proposed IFA locations.
The applicants argued the RAD erred in assessing documentary evidence regarding the CCTNS police database and tenant verification processes.
The Federal Court applied the reasonableness standard, finding the RAD's assessment of the evidence was justifiable and well within its expertise.
The Court concluded that it was reasonable for the RAD to find no serious possibility that the applicant was a person of interest to police nationwide, given his particular circumstances.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Judicial review dismissed; RAD reasonably found applicant had viable internal flight alternatives in India.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision denying him refugee protection on the basis that he had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in New Delhi, Mumbai, or Kolkata, India.
The applicant argued the RAD erred in concluding he would not face a risk of persecution in these cities, given the use of tenant registration systems and the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS).
The Federal Court found that the RAD reasonably assessed the documentary evidence and properly concluded that the applicant failed to establish a risk of harm in the proposed cities, as there was no evidence he would appear in the CCTNS or that local police would share information.
