TB4-11938

TB4-11938

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the adult appellants possessed rights in Honduras substantially similar to nationals so Article 1E excludes them; the claimed harm in Honduras was generalized criminality without sufficient nexus to a Convention ground (race) under s.97(1)(b)(ii); the minor female's documentary evidence (Hukou, notice of fine) was not credible and likely fraudulent, so she did not establish a real risk in China. Therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the RPD decision is upheld.

Citation
TB4-11938
Parties
Adult Appellant (male): XXXXXXXX; Adult Appellant (female): XXXXXXXX; Minor Appellant (female): XXXXXXXX; Minor Appellant (male): XXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision at Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Generalized Risk Under S.97(1)(b)(ii), Credibility and Documentary Fraud, Family Planning/one‑child Policy Enforcement, Standard of Review / RAD Hybrid Appeal
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Article 1 E Exclusion Nexus to Convention Grounds Generalized Risk Under S.97(1)(b)(ii) Credibility and Documentary Fraud Family Planning/one‑child Policy Enforcement +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXX

Adult Appellant (male)

XXXXXXXX

Adult Appellant (female)

XXXXXXXX

Minor Appellant (female)

XXXXXXXX

Minor Appellant (male)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision at Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adult appellants are excluded under Article 1E of the Refugee Convention by having status substantially similar to nationals in Honduras
  2. 2 Whether appellants established nexus between feared harm and a Convention ground (race)
  3. 3 Whether the risk in Honduras is generalized such that s.97(1)(b)(ii) applies

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the adult appellants possessed rights in Honduras substantially similar to nationals so Article 1E excludes them; the claimed harm in Honduras was generalized criminality without sufficient nexus to a Convention ground (race) under s.97(1)(b)(ii); the minor female's documentary evidence (Hukou, notice of fine) was not credible and likely fraudulent, so she did not establish a real risk in China. Therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the RPD decision is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of IRPA