MB9-08838

MB9-08838

The RPD correctly found that, although past attacks were credible, the appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that they would face a personal prospective risk if returned to Haiti; the principal appellant's risk was tied to his former status as a manager which he no longer holds, and any risk of being perceived as wealthy is generalized and insufficient for protection; procedural fairness was not breached.

Citation
MB9-08838
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (son): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Procedural Fairness, Risk Assessment, Generalized Vs Individualized Risk
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Procedural Fairness Risk Assessment Generalized Vs Individualized Risk

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the RPD breach procedural fairness?
  2. 2 Did the appellants establish, on a balance of probabilities, a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment if returned to Haiti?
  3. 3 Whether the risk alleged is individualized or generalized and whether past targeting suffices to establish future risk

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD correctly found that, although past attacks were credible, the appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that they would face a personal prospective risk if returned to Haiti; the principal appellant's risk was tied to his former status as a manager which he no longer holds, and any risk of being perceived as wealthy is generalized and insufficient for protection; procedural fairness was not breached.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.