TB6-12956

TB6-12956

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to establish a personalized risk of persecution: the evidence the appellants sought to rely on was not new under s110(4) IRPA, the documentary record (NDP) established that violent crime in Guyana is widespread and targets persons perceived to have money rather than ethnic Chinese specifically, there was no probative documentation demonstrating ethnic targeting or state bias sufficient to remove the claim from the generalized-risk exception, and therefore on the balance of probabilities the appellants do not meet the definitions of Convention refugee or person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB6-12956
Parties
Principal Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Principal Female Appellant / Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Oldest Minor Son: XXXX XXXX; Youngest Minor Son: XXXX XXXX; Minor Daughter: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal — Redetermination After Federal Court Remittal / Redetermination by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence, Best Interests of the Child, Generalized Risk, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Admissibility of New Evidence Best Interests of the Child Generalized Risk +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Male Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Principal Female Appellant / Designated Representative

XXXX XXXX

Oldest Minor Son

XXXX XXXX

Youngest Minor Son

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Daughter

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal — Redetermination After Federal Court Remittal / Redetermination by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants qualify as Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether appellants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the new evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to establish a personalized risk of persecution: the evidence the appellants sought to rely on was not new under s110(4) IRPA, the documentary record (NDP) established that violent crime in Guyana is widespread and targets persons perceived to have money rather than ethnic Chinese specifically, there was no probative documentation demonstrating ethnic targeting or state bias sufficient to remove the claim from the generalized-risk exception, and therefore on the balance of probabilities the appellants do not meet the definitions of Convention refugee or person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
  • Findings that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA