TB4-06749

TB4-06749

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the principal Appellant is excluded under s.98 IRPA because she failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection in the Dominican Republic with clear and convincing evidence; her credibility was undermined by repeated re‑availment (returning to the Dominican Republic after foreign trips) and implausibility of remaining in the same town despite alleged repeated attacks; consequently the minors, dependent on her claim, are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB4-06749
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision Issued
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision excluding principal under s.98 IRPA and finding minors are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Exclusion Under S.98 IRPA / Article 1 E of the Refugee Convention, Credibility and Plausibility Findings, State Protection / Re‑availment, Sur Place Analysis, Procedure for Oral Hearing on Appeal, Standard of Review (rad Hybrid Review)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Exclusion Under S.98 IRPA / Article 1 E of the Refugee Convention Credibility and Plausibility Findings State Protection / Re‑availment Sur Place Analysis Procedure for Oral Hearing on Appeal +1 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal Appellant is excluded from refugee protection under s.98 IRPA (Article 1E)
  2. 2 Whether the principal Appellant and minors are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Credibility of the principal Appellant's allegations and plausibility of her conduct (re‑availment)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the principal Appellant is excluded under s.98 IRPA because she failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection in the Dominican Republic with clear and convincing evidence; her credibility was undermined by repeated re‑availment (returning to the Dominican Republic after foreign trips) and implausibility of remaining in the same town despite alleged repeated attacks; consequently the minors, dependent on her claim, are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision excluding principal under s.98 IRPA and finding minors are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Application for an oral hearing denied
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed