TB6-04723

TB6-04723

The RAD confirms the RPD: the Appellants are entitled to return to Argentina (Article 1E) and, on the merits, the incidents in Argentina do not establish a serious possibility of persecution linked to a Convention ground nor that state protection was unavailable; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB6-04723
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor Female): XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX); Appellant (minor Male): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Article 1 E Exclusion, State Protection, Nationality, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Article 1 E Exclusion State Protection Nationality +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (female)

XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX)

Appellant (minor Female)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor Male)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether there is nexus between fear and a Convention ground (nationality/race)
  2. 2 whether the Appellants rebutted the presumption of state protection
  3. 3 application of Article 1E exclusion (entitlement to return to Argentina)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD: the Appellants are entitled to return to Argentina (Article 1E) and, on the merits, the incidents in Argentina do not establish a serious possibility of persecution linked to a Convention ground nor that state protection was unavailable; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the RPD decision and dismisses the appeals