TB5-09575

TB5-09575

The RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD decision: on the full record (including admitted new evidence) the Appellants did not demonstrate a well‑founded fear of persecution nor rebut the presumption of state protection on a balance of probabilities; admitted country documentation and individual evidence showed discrimination but not persecution or a serious risk to life, torture or cruel and unusual treatment.

Citation
TB5-09575
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Common Law Spouse / Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) on Merits and Admissibility of New Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under subsection 111(1)(a) IRPA that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Country Conditions, Admissibility of New Evidence Under S.110(4) IRPA, Credibility Assessment, Persecution, Cumulative Discrimination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee State Protection Country Conditions Admissibility of New Evidence Under S.110(4) IRPA Credibility Assessment +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Common Law Spouse / Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) on Merits and Admissibility of New Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the new evidence meets the admissibility test in s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings and factual conclusions

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD decision: on the full record (including admitted new evidence) the Appellants did not demonstrate a well‑founded fear of persecution nor rebut the presumption of state protection on a balance of probabilities; admitted country documentation and individual evidence showed discrimination but not persecution or a serious risk to life, torture or cruel and unusual treatment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under subsection 111(1)(a) IRPA that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.