TB9-15337

TB9-15337

The appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they face a personalized risk: the alleged threat was vague, indirect and third‑hand and was omitted from the Basis of Claim, the unknown gunman was not identified or shown to be pursuing them, and the risk is consistent with a generalized risk faced by others in the appellants' occupation; therefore they are not persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TB9-15337
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Section 97 IRPA, Nexus, Personalized Risk, Credibility Findings
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Section 97 IRPA Nexus Personalized Risk Credibility Findings

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the risk they face is personalized or generalized

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they face a personalized risk: the alleged threat was vague, indirect and third‑hand and was omitted from the Basis of Claim, the unknown gunman was not identified or shown to be pursuing them, and the risk is consistent with a generalized risk faced by others in the appellants' occupation; therefore they are not persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD determination confirmed that the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA