TB5-03535

TB5-03535

The RAD confirmed the RPD because on a balance of probabilities the Appellants' nearly two‑year unexplained delay undermined any subjective fear, the documentary record did not establish an objectively well‑founded fear of persecution of Armenian Christians in Lebanon from ISIS or affiliates, and a viable internal flight alternative existed in Beirut; one piece of proffered new evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) and the remaining evidence did not alter the conclusion.

Citation
TB5-03535
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: Caren Panboukian
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Administrative Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From a Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Internal Flight Alternative, Delay in Claiming, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review/hybrid Appeal
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Determination Internal Flight Alternative Delay in Claiming Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review/hybrid Appeal

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

Caren Panboukian

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Administrative Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From a Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of new documentary evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether Appellants face an objectively well‑founded fear of persecution in Lebanon (objective risk)
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (Beirut) exists

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because on a balance of probabilities the Appellants' nearly two‑year unexplained delay undermined any subjective fear, the documentary record did not establish an objectively well‑founded fear of persecution of Armenian Christians in Lebanon from ISIS or affiliates, and a viable internal flight alternative existed in Beirut; one piece of proffered new evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) and the remaining evidence did not alter the conclusion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act