TB7-10438

TB7-10438

The RAD confirmed the RPD: sending a second letter to the Minister under RPD Rules 26/27 did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias; the principal appellant possessed Ethiopian permanent residence with rights substantially similar to nationals and is therefore excluded under Article 1E; the discriminatory incidents alleged were not sufficiently persistent or severe to constitute persecution or create a forward‑looking risk; accordingly the appeal is dismissed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-10438
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision — Appeal Heard and Determined by RAD
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of RPD confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Persecution Vs Discrimination, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Request for Oral Hearing
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Article 1 E Exclusion Persecution Vs Discrimination Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision — Appeal Heard and Determined by RAD

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias by writing a second letter to the Minister
  2. 2 Whether the principal appellant is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E because he has rights similar to Ethiopian nationals/permanent residence in Ethiopia
  3. 3 Whether the discriminatory treatment alleged in Ethiopia amounts to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: sending a second letter to the Minister under RPD Rules 26/27 did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias; the principal appellant possessed Ethiopian permanent residence with rights substantially similar to nationals and is therefore excluded under Article 1E; the discriminatory incidents alleged were not sufficiently persistent or severe to constitute persecution or create a forward‑looking risk; accordingly the appeal is dismissed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of RPD confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

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