VB8-06434

VB8-06434

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supportable: the appellants failed to meet their onus and the Ward 'clear and convincing' threshold for state protection (state was not approached and no reasonable explanation for failing to do so), there was no procedural fairness breach or demonstrable counsel incompetence sufficient to alter the outcome, and no new evidence warranted consideration; accordingly the RPD decision that appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA was confirmed.

Citation
VB8-06434
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Claimant (not Party to Appeal): XXXX (minor, USA citizen); Panel Member: Richard Jackson; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refusal by Refugee Protection Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons Delivered May 15, 2019)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Sur Place Claim, State Protection, Counsel Competence, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Credibility Assessment Sur Place Claim State Protection Counsel Competence +2 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellants

XXXX (minor, USA citizen)

Minor Associate Claimant (not Party to Appeal)

Richard Jackson

Panel Member

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refusal by Refugee Protection Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons Delivered May 15, 2019)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a breach of procedural fairness by the RPD
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the principal appellant's conversion and account of the attack
  3. 3 Whether the appellants established Convention refugee status or need for protection (including sur place)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supportable: the appellants failed to meet their onus and the Ward 'clear and convincing' threshold for state protection (state was not approached and no reasonable explanation for failing to do so), there was no procedural fairness breach or demonstrable counsel incompetence sufficient to alter the outcome, and no new evidence warranted consideration; accordingly the RPD decision that appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA was confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of IRPA
  • No new evidence admitted under section 110(4) IRPA and no oral hearing ordered under section 110(6) IRPA