MB4-00671

MB4-00671

The RAD confirms the RPD: the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection because the new evidence is not credible or material and is therefore not admitted; there was no prejudicial breach of natural justice from the failure to formally designate a representative for the minors; country conditions and alleged recruitment inducements do not establish an individualized risk of persecution sufficient to require protection; appeal dismissed.

Citation
MB4-00671
Parties
Principal Appellant: Ms. XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant – Son (17): XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant – Son (19): Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant – Daughter (13): XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad Confirms RPD Decision; Request for Hearing Denied)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Natural Justice, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Country Conditions, Refoulement, Designation of Representative
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Natural Justice Admission of Fresh Evidence Country Conditions +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms. XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant – Son (17)

Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant – Son (19)

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant – Daughter (13)

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad Confirms RPD Decision; Request for Hearing Denied)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether failure to appoint a designated representative for minors amounted to a breach of natural justice requiring a rehearing

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD: the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection because the new evidence is not credible or material and is therefore not admitted; there was no prejudicial breach of natural justice from the failure to formally designate a representative for the minors; country conditions and alleged recruitment inducements do not establish an individualized risk of persecution sufficient to require protection; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • New evidence not admitted to the RAD appeal record
  • Request for an oral hearing under IRPA s.110(6) denied