MB7-22430

MB7-22430

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to demonstrate legal error: the RPD considered the sexual assault but found no present well-founded fear (the appellant's willingness to return to Haiti in 2017 indicated lack of subjective fear), the appellant did not advance a claim of persecution on the sole ground of gender so Guideline 4 was not required to change the result, and there was no procedural unfairness from counsel's absence since the appellant chose to proceed without counsel and did not object at the hearing.

Citation
MB7-22430
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by RAD
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Gender Based Persecution, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Procedural Fairness, Legal Standard of Review, Guideline 4 Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender Related Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Gender Based Persecution Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Procedural Fairness Legal Standard of Review +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by RAD

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred by failing to consider Chairperson's Guideline 4
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred by failing to consider documentary evidence on sexual violence in Haiti and analyze situation of women
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred by not allowing sufficient time to find new counsel after counsel's non-appearance

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to demonstrate legal error: the RPD considered the sexual assault but found no present well-founded fear (the appellant's willingness to return to Haiti in 2017 indicated lack of subjective fear), the appellant did not advance a claim of persecution on the sole ground of gender so Guideline 4 was not required to change the result, and there was no procedural unfairness from counsel's absence since the appellant chose to proceed without counsel and did not object at the hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and the RPD determination that the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed