MB5-02811

MB5-02811

The RAD affirms the RPD: the evidence does not establish, individually or cumulatively, a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 nor a risk under s.97 IRPA; threats alleged have ceased, there is insufficient documentary support for apostasy-based persecution, and the objective country conditions do not support a contrary conclusion, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB5-02811
Parties
Principal Appellant: Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX; Dependent Child (appellant): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Asylum, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Persecution, Apostasy, Country Conditions, Credibility and Deference
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Asylum Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Persecution Apostasy +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Dependent Child (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred by failing to consider cumulative mistreatment and risk of persecution
  2. 2 Whether the Principal Appellant's status as an alleged apostate engages protection under s.96 or s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 The degree of deference the RAD must apply to RPD credibility findings versus country conditions assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirms the RPD: the evidence does not establish, individually or cumulatively, a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 nor a risk under s.97 IRPA; threats alleged have ceased, there is insufficient documentary support for apostasy-based persecution, and the objective country conditions do not support a contrary conclusion, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • The Refugee Protection Division determination is confirmed: appellants are neither Convention refugees (s.96 IRPA) nor persons in need of protection (s.97 IRPA)