TB5-10258

TB5-10258

On the evidence the RAD determined the RPD's conclusion should be upheld: the appellants experienced discrimination but it did not amount to persecution and they failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection on the balance of probabilities; accordingly there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture/cruel treatment and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TB5-10258
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (son): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (child): XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Appellants: James Gildiner; Counsel for the Minister: Minister (no counsel)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD finding that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Persecution, Racial/ethnic Discrimination (roma), Education Access, Healthcare Access, Housing, Employment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment State Protection Persecution Racial/ethnic Discrimination (roma) Education Access +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

Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (son)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (child)

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

James Gildiner

Counsel for the Appellants

Minister (no counsel)

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether appellants are persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether cumulative discrimination amounts to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the RAD determined the RPD's conclusion should be upheld: the appellants experienced discrimination but it did not amount to persecution and they failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection on the balance of probabilities; accordingly there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture/cruel treatment and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD finding that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed