TB9-18877

TB9-18877

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the consequences asserted (denial of entry and possible penalties for unlawful entry or overstaying) arise from laws of general application affecting all foreigners and do not, on the evidence, amount to persecution on a Convention ground; there was insufficient objective evidence of a personalized risk of imprisonment, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment to satisfy section 97, and the RPD's partial analytical error regarding hypothetical future sponsorship was harmless as its conclusion was correct.

Citation
TB9-18877
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Second Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; First Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Second Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division (rad); Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Forward‑looking Risk Assessment, Denial of Right to Return, Statelessness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Forward‑looking Risk Assessment Denial of Right to Return Statelessness

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Second Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

First Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Second Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division (rad); Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its assessment of the appellants' forward‑looking risk if returned to Saudi Arabia
  2. 2 Whether denial of a right to return constitutes persecution under the Convention grounds
  3. 3 Whether the appellants face a personalized risk to life, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment under s.97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the consequences asserted (denial of entry and possible penalties for unlawful entry or overstaying) arise from laws of general application affecting all foreigners and do not, on the evidence, amount to persecution on a Convention ground; there was insufficient objective evidence of a personalized risk of imprisonment, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment to satisfy section 97, and the RPD's partial analytical error regarding hypothetical future sponsorship was harmless as its conclusion was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)
  • Decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection