MB8-17137

MB8-17137

The RPD decision is confirmed because the appellants failed to meet the burden to establish a serious possibility of persecution tied to a Convention ground or a personal risk under s.97 IRPA: the principal appellant did not demonstrate membership in a protected social group or sufficient individualized risk; the male appellant's fear reflected generalized insecurity and lacked evidence of ongoing personal targeting; and the minor child could reasonably expect protection in the United States as a citizen, so no refugee or protection status is warranted.

Citation
MB8-17137
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Reasons and Decision on Appeal (dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Best Interests of the Child, Particular Social Group, Burden of Proof, Generalized Vs Personal Risk
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Child Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Best Interests of the Child Particular Social Group +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Reasons and Decision on Appeal (dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RPD erred in law or mixed fact and law in rejecting refugee claims
  2. 2 Whether principal appellant is a member of a protected social group (women) and faces a serious possibility of persecution
  3. 3 Whether male appellant faces a personal risk distinct from generalized risk under s.97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD decision is confirmed because the appellants failed to meet the burden to establish a serious possibility of persecution tied to a Convention ground or a personal risk under s.97 IRPA: the principal appellant did not demonstrate membership in a protected social group or sufficient individualized risk; the male appellant's fear reflected generalized insecurity and lacked evidence of ongoing personal targeting; and the minor child could reasonably expect protection in the United States as a citizen, so no refugee or protection status is warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision

Orders

  • RAD confirms RPD decision rejecting refugee protection claims; appeal dismissed