VB8-03817

VB8-03817

The RAD found no legal or factual error in the RPD's findings: the respondent was credible, objective documentation and family statements corroborated ongoing targeted extortion and the murder of a half-brother, and there is no effective state protection or viable internal flight alternative, thus the risk is particularized and the respondent is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
VB8-03817
Parties
Respondent / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant: Appellant Minister; Tribunal: Refugee Appeal Division (Panel: Richard Jackson)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; Respondent found to be a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Section 97 IRPA Need for Protection, Generalized Vs Particularized Risk, State Protection / Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Section 97 IRPA Need for Protection Generalized Vs Particularized Risk State Protection / Internal Flight Alternative

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 XXXX XXXX

Respondent / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Appellant Minister

Appellant

Refugee Appeal Division (Panel: Richard Jackson)

Tribunal

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the respondent
  2. 2 Whether the risk to the respondent on return to Honduras was particularized under section 97 of IRPA or merely generalized

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found no legal or factual error in the RPD's findings: the respondent was credible, objective documentation and family statements corroborated ongoing targeted extortion and the murder of a half-brother, and there is no effective state protection or viable internal flight alternative, thus the risk is particularized and the respondent is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; Respondent found to be a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirming person in need of protection under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is upheld.