VB8-05618

VB8-05618

The RAD dismissed the appeals because the Appellants' allegations lacked an objective basis on the totality of evidence, documentary country evidence indicated no state persecution and available protection in Luxembourg, corroboration was absent or unpersuasive, and the female Appellant admitted she faced no risk in India, making the RPD's conclusion correct on the determinative issues.

Citation
VB8-05618
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review) / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Article 1 E Exclusion, Credibility and Objective Basis, Standard of Review, State Protection, Admissibility of Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Article 1 E Exclusion Credibility and Objective Basis Standard of Review State Protection +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review) / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants' claims are objectively well-founded
  3. 3 Whether the female Appellant is excluded under Article 1E of the Refugee Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeals because the Appellants' allegations lacked an objective basis on the totality of evidence, documentary country evidence indicated no state persecution and available protection in Luxembourg, corroboration was absent or unpersuasive, and the female Appellant admitted she faced no risk in India, making the RPD's conclusion correct on the determinative issues.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA