TB9-07413

TB9-07413

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellants have or are entitled to Netherlands citizenship and failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, a forward‑facing risk or lack of adequate state protection in the Netherlands; any procedural fairness deficiencies identified were non‑determinative and would not have changed the outcome, therefore the RPD decision is correct and is confirmed.

Citation
TB9-07413
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Procedural Fairness, Vulnerable Persons, State Protection, Citizenship as Country of Reference
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Procedural Fairness Vulnerable Persons 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 6 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants face a forward‑facing risk in the Netherlands
  2. 2 Whether cumulative discrimination in Hungary amounts to persecution
  3. 3 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to accommodate a survivor of gender‑based violence and a self‑represented litigant

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellants have or are entitled to Netherlands citizenship and failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, a forward‑facing risk or lack of adequate state protection in the Netherlands; any procedural fairness deficiencies identified were non‑determinative and would not have changed the outcome, therefore the RPD decision is correct and is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

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