VC0-04447

VC0-04447

Family unity and family reunification are not legal bases for refugee protection under sections 96 or 97 IRPA; the appellants failed to demonstrate, on the required tests, a serious possibility of persecution or a personalized risk in their countries of nationality (Portugal or the USA), therefore the RPD's rejection was correct and the RAD dismisses the appeal.

Citation
VC0-04447
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (refugee Protection Claim) / Reasons and Decision on Appeal (judicial Review Standard Applied)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Family Unity, Family Reunification, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Family Unity Family Reunification Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Standard of Review

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant (female)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant (male)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (refugee Protection Claim) / Reasons and Decision on Appeal (judicial Review Standard Applied)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether family unity or family reunification must be considered in determining refugee status under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether appellants face a forward‑looking serious possibility of persecution or a personalized risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment in their countries of nationality (Portugal, USA)
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in law or in fact in its credibility and risk findings

Ratio Decidendi

Family unity and family reunification are not legal bases for refugee protection under sections 96 or 97 IRPA; the appellants failed to demonstrate, on the required tests, a serious possibility of persecution or a personalized risk in their countries of nationality (Portugal or the USA), therefore the RPD's rejection was correct and the RAD dismisses the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision confirmed