TC2-00829

TC2-00829

Although the RPD erred in part by failing to consider Chairperson's Guideline 4 and by initially finding no nexus regarding religious fundamentalism, the appellants failed to establish a forward‑facing risk that rises to a serious possibility of persecution; the property threats stem from a family feud removable by relinquishing property rights (a reasonable alternative not depriving fundamental rights), and the risk from the son did not amount to persecution; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed.

Citation
TC2-00829
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant Son: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant Daughter: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Risk Assessment, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Gender Based Persecution, Country Conditions, Property Dispute
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Status Risk Assessment Nexus to Convention Grounds Gender Based Persecution Country Conditions +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant Son

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant Daughter

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants face a forward‑facing risk of persecution
  2. 2 Whether there is nexus to a Convention ground (particular social group; religion)
  3. 3 Whether the RPD applied Chairperson's Guideline 4 regarding women fearing gender‑related persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RPD erred in part by failing to consider Chairperson's Guideline 4 and by initially finding no nexus regarding religious fundamentalism, the appellants failed to establish a forward‑facing risk that rises to a serious possibility of persecution; the property threats stem from a family feud removable by relinquishing property rights (a reasonable alternative not depriving fundamental rights), and the risk from the son did not amount to persecution; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the Refugee Protection Division that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection