MB9-02092

MB9-02092

The RPD's decision is confirmed because the appellants failed to establish credibility on key elements of the claim, corroborating documents were inconsistent with testimony, and there is no evidence the minor would face a serious possibility of persecution or a balance‑of‑probabilities risk of cruel and unusual treatment or torture on return; state protection in Brazil is available to the minor, therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Citation
MB9-02092
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Associate: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor Associate: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Persecution Risk, State Protection, Best Interests of the Child, Corroborating Evidence, Land Dispute
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Credibility Assessment Persecution Risk State Protection Best Interests of the Child Corroborating Evidence Land Dispute

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Associate

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor Associate

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are credible
  2. 2 Whether the principal appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution in Haiti due to a land dispute
  3. 3 Whether the minor appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution or risk in Brazil because of race or origin

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's decision is confirmed because the appellants failed to establish credibility on key elements of the claim, corroborating documents were inconsistent with testimony, and there is no evidence the minor would face a serious possibility of persecution or a balance‑of‑probabilities risk of cruel and unusual treatment or torture on return; state protection in Brazil is available to the minor, therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • The appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.
  • Appeal dismissed.