VC2-03256

VC2-03256

The RPD properly applied the legal standards: appellants were found credible but failed to prove a forward-facing objective risk of persecution. The record supports the finding that police visits were primarily for extracting bribes and were directed at the appellants' acquaintance, not the appellants; payment of bribes does not amount to persecution or a s.97(1) risk. Therefore the appellants did not meet the thresholds in sections 96 or 97(1) IRPA and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
VC2-03256
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Well Founded Fear, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Risk of Persecution, Bribery by Police, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Well Founded Fear Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Risk of Persecution Bribery by Police +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants face a well-founded fear of persecution in India
  2. 2 Whether police interest in the appellants is related to Dera Sacha Sauda (DSS) membership
  3. 3 Whether solicitation or payment of bribes by police constitutes persecution or a risk under s.96/s.97(1) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD properly applied the legal standards: appellants were found credible but failed to prove a forward-facing objective risk of persecution. The record supports the finding that police visits were primarily for extracting bribes and were directed at the appellants' acquaintance, not the appellants; payment of bribes does not amount to persecution or a s.97(1) risk. Therefore the appellants did not meet the thresholds in sections 96 or 97(1) IRPA and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed
  • The decision of the RPD is confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection