VB8-02627

VB8-02627

The RAD dismissed the appeal: the RPD did not breach procedural fairness nor give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias because the appellants were aware of their right to counsel, no adjournment was requested, the RPD accommodated unrepresented parties and a supportive family member, the hearing allowed meaningful participation, and there was no evidence the RPD pre-determined the outcome; therefore the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under section 111(1)(a) IRPA is confirmed.

Citation
VB8-02627
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed under section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Procedural Fairness, Right to Counsel, Adjournment, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Refugee Protection Right to Counsel Adjournment Reasonable Apprehension of Bias

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a breach of procedural fairness by failing to adjourn or ensure right to counsel
  2. 2 Whether the RPD mischaracterized a family member as counsel and denied meaningful participation
  3. 3 Whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias because the RPD allegedly pre-determined the decision

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal: the RPD did not breach procedural fairness nor give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias because the appellants were aware of their right to counsel, no adjournment was requested, the RPD accommodated unrepresented parties and a supportive family member, the hearing allowed meaningful participation, and there was no evidence the RPD pre-determined the outcome; therefore the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under section 111(1)(a) IRPA is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed under section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; RPD decision of April 30, 2018 confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection