TB6-12323

TB6-12323

The RPD did not err: objective and testimonial evidence established that actions against the Respondents' father were politically motivated and persecutory, the Respondents hold actual and imputed political opinions and are members of a particular social group (immediate family), and there is no adequate state protection or viable internal flight alternative; therefore the Respondents face a serious possibility of persecution and are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA.

Citation
TB6-12323
Parties
Principal Respondent: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Secondary Respondent: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant/minister: Minister of Refugees, Immigration, and Citizenship
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Redetermination) / Redetermination of the Appeal Following Federal Court Remittal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed; Respondents are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Political Opinion, Particular Social Group (family), Persecution Definition, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Political Opinion Particular Social Group (family) Persecution Definition State Protection +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Respondent

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Secondary Respondent

Minister of Refugees, Immigration, and Citizenship

Appellant/minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Redetermination) / Redetermination of the Appeal Following Federal Court Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its definition and application of persecution
  2. 2 Whether the Respondents have nexus to a Convention ground (actual or imputed political opinion and membership in a particular social group as family)
  3. 3 Whether state protection or a viable internal flight alternative exists

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD did not err: objective and testimonial evidence established that actions against the Respondents' father were politically motivated and persecutory, the Respondents hold actual and imputed political opinions and are members of a particular social group (immediate family), and there is no adequate state protection or viable internal flight alternative; therefore the Respondents face a serious possibility of persecution and are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed; Respondents are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed (Respondents recognized as Convention refugees)