TC2-02029

TC2-02029

The appellant was given a fair hearing and failed to act diligently in securing available counsel; the RPD's adverse credibility findings regarding the alleged agent of persecution and incidents of assault/detention were supported by the record; any procedural shortcomings were either not established or not material to the outcome; therefore the RPD's decision that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TC2-02029
Parties
Appellant (person Subject of the Appeal): XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / RAD Decision on Appeal From RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, Postponement, Right to Counsel, Internal Flight Alternative, Natural Justice, Meaningful Participation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Credibility Postponement Right to Counsel Internal Flight Alternative +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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (person Subject of the Appeal)

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (Canada)

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / RAD Decision on Appeal From RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness by refusing a postponement and requiring the appellant to proceed unrepresented
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was able to participate meaningfully without counsel
  3. 3 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was given a fair hearing and failed to act diligently in securing available counsel; the RPD's adverse credibility findings regarding the alleged agent of persecution and incidents of assault/detention were supported by the record; any procedural shortcomings were either not established or not material to the outcome; therefore the RPD's decision that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

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