TB4-05080

TB4-05080

RAD independently reviewed the RPD record, found no admissible new evidence, agreed with the RPD that the Appellants failed to establish credible evidence of targeted persecution or a nexus between extortion risk and a Convention ground; any extortion risk is generalized (based on perceived wealth) not tied to ethnicity or religion, and the Appellants' profiles do not establish a serious possibility of persecution on return — therefore under IRPA s.111(1)(a) the RPD decision is confirmed and appeals dismissed.

Citation
TB4-05080
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXXXXXXXXX; Associated Appellant (spouse): XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Appeal Decision (refusal Confirmed)
Outcome
RAD confirms RPD decision; appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
RAD Jurisdiction and Remedies, Standard of Review and Deference, Credibility Findings, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Failed Asylum Seekers and Returnee Risk, Extortion as Persecution, State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law RAD Jurisdiction and Remedies Standard of Review and Deference Credibility Findings Nexus to Convention Grounds Failed Asylum Seekers and Returnee Risk +2 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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Associated Appellant (spouse)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Appeal Decision (refusal Confirmed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the proper role and standard of review for the RAD in appeals from the RPD?
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in assessing risk faced by failed Tamil asylum seekers on return to Sri Lanka.
  3. 3 Whether continuous extortion alleged by the Appellants amounts to persecution and is connected to a Convention ground.

Ratio Decidendi

RAD independently reviewed the RPD record, found no admissible new evidence, agreed with the RPD that the Appellants failed to establish credible evidence of targeted persecution or a nexus between extortion risk and a Convention ground; any extortion risk is generalized (based on perceived wealth) not tied to ethnicity or religion, and the Appellants' profiles do not establish a serious possibility of persecution on return — therefore under IRPA s.111(1)(a) the RPD decision is confirmed and appeals dismissed.

Court Disposition

RAD confirms RPD decision; appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
  • Appeals dismissed under IRPA s.111(1)(a)