TB6-10136

TB6-10136

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants' claims were not credible, their fear of future persecution was speculative and generalized, they failed to rebut the presumption of state protection, and no new evidence was submitted to justify reconsideration or an oral RAD hearing; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB6-10136
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, State Protection, Sectarian Violence, Delay in Departure, Interpretation, Standard of Review, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility State Protection Sectarian Violence Delay in Departure Interpretation +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the appellants have a well-founded fear of persecution or face only generalized risk
  3. 3 Whether the appellants rebutted the presumption of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants' claims were not credible, their fear of future persecution was speculative and generalized, they failed to rebut the presumption of state protection, and no new evidence was submitted to justify reconsideration or an oral RAD hearing; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the RPD decision that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
  • No oral hearing is convened before the RAD (no new evidence submitted)