TB8-05750

TB8-05750

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the Appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities a nexus to the Convention refugee definition or a forward‑facing personalized risk; the new text messages were of little probative value and their timing justified a negative inference, so the RPD decision was confirmed.

Citation
TB8-05750
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (mother): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (son): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (niece): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by the Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Admissibility of New Evidence Oral Hearing +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 XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (mother)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (son)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (niece)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by the Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Appellants meet the Convention refugee definition
  2. 2 Whether Appellants are persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether principal Appellant is a member of the alleged persecuted family

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the Appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities a nexus to the Convention refugee definition or a forward‑facing personalized risk; the new text messages were of little probative value and their timing justified a negative inference, so the RPD decision was confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed