CAT/C/62/D/702/2015 religion, membership of a particular social group and imputed political opinion. These claims were heard by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. At the hearing, complainants were represented by counsel, had an interpreter and had the opportunity to present their claims orally. The Division determines not only if a claimant falls within the definition of a refugee under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, but also whether he or she is a person in need of protection under section 97 of the Act, which mandates protection of persons facing a real risk of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Such persons have a right not to be removed from Canada. 4.4 By decision of 1 August 2013 the Refugee Protection Division concluded that the complainants’ allegations of risk upon return to India were not credible and that, in any event, they would have an internal flight alternative in India. It determined that it did not believe the central allegation that police continued to search for the complainants after they left India; they had concerns about the allegations of torture but gave the benefit of the doubt, and accepted that the complainants had had problems with local police in 2010 and 2011; however, the complainants lacked credibility regarding some of their allegations, particularly as they had testified that they had sent their identity cards to the local police while in Canada to establish their whereabouts, while also having claimed that they were in hiding. The Division concluded that they did not fit the profile of persons likely to be sought by the police in Punjab or who were important enough to attract the attention of the central authorities in India. 21 The authors also testified that they had been able to go through airport security using their own passports and that there were no arrest warrants or legal proceedings in relation to them. Therefore, the Division found that there was no evidence that they were being sought by Indian authorities or that Indian authorities would wish to search for them throughout India. The fact that they left with, and would be returning with, valid travel documents was determined to mean that their failed refugee status would not pose problems for them upon re-entry. 4.5 In addition, it was found that they would have a viable internal flight alternative to either Mumbai or New Delhi if they were in fact of interest to local police in Punjab, as available documentary evidence indicates that there is freedom of movement in India, people do not have to register their religion and local police do not have the resources to verify the identity of all new arrivals. The second complainant confirmed that he would be able to find work in a major city, and there was no evidence before the Division that the first complainant would be unable to live in one of those cities. 4.6 On 3 September 2013, the complainants applied to the Federal Court for leave to seek judicial review of the Division’s decision. The authors were represented by counsel for the appeal. The burden of proof to be met is that there must be a fairly arguable case or a serious question to be determined. The application was denied on 3 December. 4.7 On 21 November 2014 the complainants applied for a pre-removal risk assessment. The scheme is based on the State party’s domestic and international commitments to nonrefoulement. Such applications are considered by senior immigration officers. When applicants have already had their claim determined by the Refugee Protection Division, such assessments are largely based on new facts or evidence which have arisen since the Division’s decision, or which were not reasonably available, or that the applicant could not reasonably be expected in the circumstances to provide at that time and which demonstrate that the applicant is now at risk of persecution, torture or cruel or unusual punishment, or that his or her life is at risk. The affidavits provided to support the application, sworn in February 2014, were given very little probative value as they repeated the same points claimed by the authors before the Division and gave no new information. The assessment officer thoroughly reviewed objective country reports and noted the general human rights issues in India. However, the officer found that the authors had not provided evidence to demonstrate that they would be personally at risk as a result of those issues. The officer also found that the complainants had not demonstrated that they could not reasonably relocate to the viable internal flight alternatives identified by the Division, namely Mumbai or New 21 The complainants testified that they had never been involved in politics or engaged in militant activity. 5