TB6-03800

TB6-03800

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the appellants failed to meet their burden of proof: testimonial and documentary evidence were inconsistent and insufficient, expert and family letters lacked independent corroboration, Argentina provided adequate state protection and the appellants retained status there such that Article 1E exclusion applied to the principal appellant and the children; accordingly the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB6-03800
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision Rendered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Best Interests of the Child, Exclusion Article 1 E, Standard of Review/deference
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment State Protection Best Interests of the Child Exclusion Article 1 E Standard of Review/deference

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision Rendered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing credibility of the principal appellant and witnesses
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to consider the best interests of the children
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in assessing state protection in Argentina

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the appellants failed to meet their burden of proof: testimonial and documentary evidence were inconsistent and insufficient, expert and family letters lacked independent corroboration, Argentina provided adequate state protection and the appellants retained status there such that Article 1E exclusion applied to the principal appellant and the children; accordingly the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • The decision of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed
  • Principal appellant and minor appellants are not found to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection