TB8-14549

TB8-14549

The RAD dismissed the appeal because on the balance of probabilities the evidence did not demonstrate that the PSB's conduct met the threshold of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment: visits and threats amounted to harassment and inconvenience, there was no evidence of sustained detention or physical harm, moving history did not support constant relocation, and therefore the RPD correctly found no risk under section 97 and correctly concluded the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB8-14549
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Cruel and Unusual Treatment, Risk Assessment, Credibility, Section 97 IRPA, Paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Cruel and Unusual Treatment Risk Assessment Credibility +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants face a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment under section 97 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its assessment of the evidence regarding harassment by the Public Security Bureau and the threshold for cruel and unusual treatment
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants established nexus to Convention grounds (not challenged on appeal)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because on the balance of probabilities the evidence did not demonstrate that the PSB's conduct met the threshold of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment: visits and threats amounted to harassment and inconvenience, there was no evidence of sustained detention or physical harm, moving history did not support constant relocation, and therefore the RPD correctly found no risk under section 97 and correctly concluded the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • The Refugee Appeal Division confirms the decision of the Refugee Protection Division that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.