MB9-26401

MB9-26401

The RAD allowed the appeal for the Principal Appellant, finding she credibly established a serious possibility of persecution throughout Haiti as a member of the particular social group 'women who fear gender-based violence' because her sexual assault and credible evidence rebut the presumption of state protection and no internal flight alternative exists; the RAD dismissed the Associate Appellant's appeal, confirming exclusion under Article 1E/IRPA s.98 because he had access to and failed to acquire status in Brazil, departed voluntarily, did not rebut presumption of state protection there, had a viable IFA and failed to establish forward‑facing risk in Haiti or Brazil.

Citation
MB9-26401
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Reasons for Decision
Outcome
appeal allowed in part; Principal Appellant allowed as Convention refugee; Associate Appellant dismissed and excluded under Article 1E/IRPA s.98
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, 1 E Exclusion, IRPA S.98, Credibility Findings, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Guideline 4 Women Refugee Claimants
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Gender Based Violence Exclusion Law Convention Refugee 1 E Exclusion IRPA S.98 Credibility Findings +3 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Reasons for Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of Principal Appellant regarding imputed political opinion
  2. 2 Objective basis for forward‑facing harm based on sexual assault
  3. 3 Nexus to Convention via particular social group (women who fear gender-based violence)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal for the Principal Appellant, finding she credibly established a serious possibility of persecution throughout Haiti as a member of the particular social group 'women who fear gender-based violence' because her sexual assault and credible evidence rebut the presumption of state protection and no internal flight alternative exists; the RAD dismissed the Associate Appellant's appeal, confirming exclusion under Article 1E/IRPA s.98 because he had access to and failed to acquire status in Brazil, departed voluntarily, did not rebut presumption of state protection there, had a viable IFA and failed to establish forward‑facing risk in Haiti or Brazil.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part; Principal Appellant allowed as Convention refugee; Associate Appellant dismissed and excluded under Article 1E/IRPA s.98

Orders

  • Principal Appellant XXXX XXXX is a Convention refugee (substitute decision pursuant to section 96 of IRPA)
  • Associate Appellant XXXX XXXX appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection (excluded under Article 1E and s.98 IRPA)