MB5-06090

MB5-06090

The RAD affirmed the RPD's credibility finding that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof: absence of subjective fear, lack of specific documentary evidence of FPI activity or targeted persecution in Surabaya, and the evidence only supported possible discrimination not persecution; therefore appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Citation
MB5-06090
Parties
Principal Appellant: Ms. XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant Husband: Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant Son (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Gender Related Persecution, Country Conditions, Standard of Review, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Gender Related Persecution Country Conditions Standard of Review Convention Refugee Status +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms. XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant Husband

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant Son (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility finding
  2. 2 Whether appellants face risk of persecution on grounds of race, religion or gender
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should defer to RPD credibility findings and apply correctness standard

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirmed the RPD's credibility finding that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof: absence of subjective fear, lack of specific documentary evidence of FPI activity or targeted persecution in Surabaya, and the evidence only supported possible discrimination not persecution; therefore appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated December 16, 2015 is confirmed