MB8-25362

MB8-25362

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the principal appellant's unexplained omissions and inconsistencies undermined her credibility, the central dispute is a land/property conflict which is not a Convention or section 97 protection ground, no new admissible evidence was filed to justify a RAD hearing, and the minor failed to establish risk in his country of citizenship; therefore appellants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
MB8-25362
Parties
Principal Appellant (citizen of Haiti): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant (minor, Citizen of the United States): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision) / Reasons and Decision (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are neither Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Exclusion Under Article 1 E, Property Dispute as Refugee Ground, Standard of Review, New Hearing Criteria Under S.110(6) IRPA, Forward‑looking Fear, Persons in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Exclusion Under Article 1 E Property Dispute as Refugee Ground Standard of Review New Hearing Criteria Under S.110(6) IRPA +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant (citizen of Haiti)

XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant (minor, Citizen of the United States)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision) / Reasons and Decision (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the principal appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether the appellants qualify as Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the principal appellant's unexplained omissions and inconsistencies undermined her credibility, the central dispute is a land/property conflict which is not a Convention or section 97 protection ground, no new admissible evidence was filed to justify a RAD hearing, and the minor failed to establish risk in his country of citizenship; therefore appellants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are neither Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division determination confirmed