MB9-20960

MB9-20960

The RAD confirms the RPD: the Appellants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities and with persuasive objective evidence, that the extortion they suffered was motivated by a Convention ground (race); extortion is endemic in Mexico and not shown to disproportionately target ethnic minorities; the Appellants failed to provide reasonably available corroboration from the spouse who received the threats and their conduct (not returning to India) undermines a claim of personalized risk; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Citation
MB9-20960
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Reasons and Decision (rad)
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) of IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Nexus to Convention Ground (race), Well Founded Fear, Credibility and Corroboration, Country Condition Evidence, Generalized Vs Personalized Risk
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Determination Nexus to Convention Ground (race) Well Founded Fear Credibility and Corroboration Country Condition Evidence +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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Reasons and Decision (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Appellants established nexus between extortion threats and a Convention ground (race)
  2. 2 Whether objective/corroborative evidence supports a Convention-ground nexus
  3. 3 Whether the risk alleged is generalized or personalized for the purposes of s.97(1) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD: the Appellants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities and with persuasive objective evidence, that the extortion they suffered was motivated by a Convention ground (race); extortion is endemic in Mexico and not shown to disproportionately target ethnic minorities; the Appellants failed to provide reasonably available corroboration from the spouse who received the threats and their conduct (not returning to India) undermines a claim of personalized risk; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA.

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) of IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • No new evidence admitted; no oral hearing ordered