TB8-14350

TB8-14350

Although the RAD found the RPD erred in some specific credibility reasonings (notably membership and party position), the panel concluded on review of the whole record and country documentation that the appellants did not face a serious possibility of persecution for political reasons; their problems were more plausibly commercial and the police response and country information did not demonstrate state protection would be ineffective to the degree required for refugee or protection status, therefore the appeal is dismissed under para 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB8-14350
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, State Protection Analysis, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Documentary Evidence Probative Value
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings State Protection Analysis Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Documentary Evidence Probative Value

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD provided adequate reasons for adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the RPD properly assessed the probative value of supporting documents
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred by failing to analyze state protection

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RAD found the RPD erred in some specific credibility reasonings (notably membership and party position), the panel concluded on review of the whole record and country documentation that the appellants did not face a serious possibility of persecution for political reasons; their problems were more plausibly commercial and the police response and country information did not demonstrate state protection would be ineffective to the degree required for refugee or protection status, therefore the appeal is dismissed under para 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Request for an oral hearing before the RAD refused; RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection is confirmed