TB9-19243

TB9-19243

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found on a balance of probabilities that the Principal Appellant failed to credibly establish political activities/opinion (inconsistent testimony and documents), the alleged risk as returnees is generalized and not a personalized risk, the Associate Appellant did not establish a gender-based risk given her profile and supports and the Gender Guideline was applied, and the proposed new identity card was irrelevant so not admitted; therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-19243
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Gender Based Persecution, New Evidence Admissibility, Country Conditions/returnee Risk, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Gender Based Persecution New Evidence Admissibility Country Conditions/returnee Risk Standard of Review

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant credibly established political activities and opinion
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants face a personalized risk as returnees to Haiti
  3. 3 Whether the Associate Appellant faces a gender-based risk and whether the Gender Guideline was applied

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found on a balance of probabilities that the Principal Appellant failed to credibly establish political activities/opinion (inconsistent testimony and documents), the alleged risk as returnees is generalized and not a personalized risk, the Associate Appellant did not establish a gender-based risk given her profile and supports and the Gender Guideline was applied, and the proposed new identity card was irrelevant so not admitted; therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision dated July 9, 2019 confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.
  • Proposed new evidence (national identity card) not admitted; oral hearing not convened under subsection 110(6) IRPA.