MB9-03895

MB9-03895

The RAD found the RPD erred by applying the s.97 test to the principal appellant's s.96 claim but, after conducting an independent review, concluded appellants failed to prove a serious prospective risk of persecution and failed to show that relocation to Port‑au‑Prince would be unreasonable; minors failed to establish risk of return to US or placement in inadequate social services; therefore the RPD's determination that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed and the appeals are dismissed.

Citation
MB9-03895
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Appeals dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee, Risk of Persecution, Procedural Fairness, Burden of Proof, Exclusion (article 1 F)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Risk of Persecution Procedural Fairness Burden of Proof +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) to Port‑au‑Prince was available and reasonable for the adult appellants
  2. 2 Whether appellants established a serious prospective risk of persecution on political grounds (s.96 IRPA)
  3. 3 Whether appellants established a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment (s.97 IRPA)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred by applying the s.97 test to the principal appellant's s.96 claim but, after conducting an independent review, concluded appellants failed to prove a serious prospective risk of persecution and failed to show that relocation to Port‑au‑Prince would be unreasonable; minors failed to establish risk of return to US or placement in inadequate social services; therefore the RPD's determination that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed and the appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed and RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • RPD determination that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed; no oral hearing granted