TB8-33849

TB8-33849

The RPD's decision was upheld because the Appellants admitted Dutch citizenship and no well‑founded fear of persecution in the Netherlands, no new evidence was presented to admit an oral hearing, and medical issues are H&C matters outside RPD/RAD power; accordingly the RPD decision that the Appellants are neither refugees nor PIPs is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB8-33849
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spousal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; First Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Second Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Third Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Final Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Person in Need of Protection, No Credible Basis (ncb), Jurisdiction, Medical Grounds, Citizenship
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Humanitarian and Compassionate Refugee Protection Person in Need of Protection No Credible Basis (ncb) Jurisdiction +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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spousal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

First Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Second Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Third Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Final Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the Appellants were not refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred by not considering the Second Minor Appellant's medical condition
  3. 3 Whether new evidence or an oral hearing was required

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's decision was upheld because the Appellants admitted Dutch citizenship and no well‑founded fear of persecution in the Netherlands, no new evidence was presented to admit an oral hearing, and medical issues are H&C matters outside RPD/RAD power; accordingly the RPD decision that the Appellants are neither refugees nor PIPs is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.
  • RPD decision that the Appellants are neither refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA.