TB9-06552

TB9-06552

The RAD confirmed the RPD: although the Appellant's past abuse and gang incidents were found credible, the totality of the evidence did not establish a serious possibility of future persecution from the ex‑partner nor a personalized persecutory risk from gangs; newly tendered evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4); therefore no s.96 or s.97 protection was made out and the appeal is dismissed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Citation
TB9-06552
Parties
Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal / Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision at RAD (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, State Protection, Natural Justice, New Evidence (s.110), Humanitarian and Compassionate Applications, Sections 96 and 97 IRPA, S.111(1)(a) Confirmation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility State Protection Natural Justice +4 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal / Appellant

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision at RAD (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether past domestic violence establishes a forward‑facing risk amounting to persecution
  2. 2 Whether alleged gang violence is persecutory or personalized versus generalized risk
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in assessing state protection and section 97 risk

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: although the Appellant's past abuse and gang incidents were found credible, the totality of the evidence did not establish a serious possibility of future persecution from the ex‑partner nor a personalized persecutory risk from gangs; newly tendered evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4); therefore no s.96 or s.97 protection was made out and the appeal is dismissed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision dated February 7, 2019 confirmed; no protection granted