TB4-10007

TB4-10007

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the adult appellants enjoyed rights and obligations substantially similar to Ecuadorian nationals and were therefore excluded under Article 1E; appellants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Ecuador on the required clear and convincing standard and did not exhaust reasonable avenues of state protection; admitted translations of passports and visa information were insufficient to overturn the RPD's findings; appeals dismissed.

Citation
TB4-10007
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX a.k.a.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, State Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence, Translation of Exhibits, Standard of Review, Burden of Proof, Credibility Findings
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Article 1 E Exclusion State Protection Admissibility of New Evidence Translation of Exhibits +3 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX a.k.a.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adult appellants are excluded under Article 1E as persons enjoying rights and obligations similar to nationals of Ecuador
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Ecuador was adequate such that appellants failed to rebut presumption of protection
  3. 3 Admissibility of translated passports and online visa information as new evidence on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the adult appellants enjoyed rights and obligations substantially similar to Ecuadorian nationals and were therefore excluded under Article 1E; appellants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Ecuador on the required clear and convincing standard and did not exhaust reasonable avenues of state protection; admitted translations of passports and visa information were insufficient to overturn the RPD's findings; appeals dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA
  • New evidence (translations of passports and online visa information) admitted for purposes of the RAD assessment