MB9-27252

MB9-27252

The RPD's decision was correct and is confirmed: appellants were credible but failed to prove an individualized, forward‑looking risk of persecution or serious harm under s.96 or s.97 IRPA; family separation alone is insufficient to found asylum/protection claims absent evidence of treatment reaching the level of persecution or cruel and unusual treatment; the evidence (documentary and expert) was inadequate and available family in the US reduced the likelihood of irreparable harm to the children.

Citation
MB9-27252
Parties
Appellant Mother (citizen of Mexico): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Spouse (citizen of Guatemala): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellants Children (us Citizens): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Family Unity, Best Interests of the Child, Cruel and Unusual Treatment, Asylum
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Family Unity Best Interests of the Child Cruel and Unusual Treatment +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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Mother (citizen of Mexico)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Spouse (citizen of Guatemala)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellants Children (us Citizens)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants qualify as Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether family separation alone can constitute persecution or cruel and unusual treatment

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's decision was correct and is confirmed: appellants were credible but failed to prove an individualized, forward‑looking risk of persecution or serious harm under s.96 or s.97 IRPA; family separation alone is insufficient to found asylum/protection claims absent evidence of treatment reaching the level of persecution or cruel and unusual treatment; the evidence (documentary and expert) was inadequate and available family in the US reduced the likelihood of irreparable harm to the children.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • No refugee or person-in-need-of-protection status granted