TB6-06689

TB6-06689

The RAD applied the correctness standard, concluded the RPD reasonably found the Principal Appellant excluded under Article 1F(b), found the RPD's adverse credibility findings regarding the alleged 2015 assault and re-availment were justified, and determined the Co-Appellant and Minor Appellants failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or risk to life; accordingly the RAD confirmed the RPD decision and dismissed the appeal.

Citation
TB6-06689
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Final Determination Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b), Credibility Findings, Well Founded Fear of Persecution, Standard of Review (correctness)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b) Credibility Findings Well Founded Fear of Persecution Standard of Review (correctness)

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Final Determination Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant is excluded under Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings concerning the alleged 2015 assault and re-availment
  3. 3 Whether the Co-Appellant and Minor Appellants established a well-founded fear of persecution or risk to life

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD applied the correctness standard, concluded the RPD reasonably found the Principal Appellant excluded under Article 1F(b), found the RPD's adverse credibility findings regarding the alleged 2015 assault and re-availment were justified, and determined the Co-Appellant and Minor Appellants failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or risk to life; accordingly the RAD confirmed the RPD decision and dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated May 5, 2016 is confirmed