TB8-25676

TB8-25676

The RAD allowed the appeal in part: it set aside the RPD's adverse credibility and risk findings for the Associate Adult Appellant and his two minor children, finding them Convention refugees because, when assessed with proper regard to the Associate Adult's illiteracy and youth and the minors' vulnerability and personal experiences, they face persecution and lack adequate state protection or an internal flight alternative; the RAD confirmed the RPD's decision for the Principal Appellant because, despite cumulative discriminatory acts, her Czech ethnicity and life circumstances mean the risk does not rise to persecution.

Citation
TB8-25676
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Adult Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / RAD Decision on Appeal (final)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part: RAD confirms RPD as to Principal Appellant and sets aside RPD as to Associate Adult Appellant and two minor appellants.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Persecution Vs Discrimination, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Child Vulnerability, Ethnic Discrimination (roma)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Persecution Vs Discrimination Credibility Assessment State Protection +3 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Adult Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / RAD Decision on Appeal (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Associate Adult Appellant is credible and faces persecution in Slovakia
  2. 2 Whether the two minor appellants face a forward‑facing risk amounting to persecution in the Czech Republic
  3. 3 Whether the Principal Appellant's cumulative experiences amount to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal in part: it set aside the RPD's adverse credibility and risk findings for the Associate Adult Appellant and his two minor children, finding them Convention refugees because, when assessed with proper regard to the Associate Adult's illiteracy and youth and the minors' vulnerability and personal experiences, they face persecution and lack adequate state protection or an internal flight alternative; the RAD confirmed the RPD's decision for the Principal Appellant because, despite cumulative discriminatory acts, her Czech ethnicity and life circumstances mean the risk does not rise to persecution.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part: RAD confirms RPD as to Principal Appellant and sets aside RPD as to Associate Adult Appellant and two minor appellants.

Orders

  • RAD dismisses the appeal in part and confirms the RPD's determination that the Principal Appellant, XXXX XXXX, is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.
  • Pursuant to section 111(1)(b) of the IRPA, RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the Associate Adult Appellant, XXXX XXXX, and his two minor children, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, are Convention refugees.