TB9-12511

TB9-12511

The RPD did not err in disjoining the appellants' claims because it had discretion under Rule 70, gave notice and opportunity to be heard, properly considered the factors under Rule 56(5), and no claim was made against Latvia so the appellants failed to establish status as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection; therefore the RAD dismisses the appeal under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-12511
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by the Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disjoinder of Claims, Procedural Fairness, Rules of Procedure, Country of Nationality
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Disjoinder of Claims Procedural Fairness Rules of Procedure Country of Nationality

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by the Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in disjoining the appellants' claims without an application by a party
  2. 2 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness under Rule 70 by failing to give notice and an opportunity to object before changing requirements
  3. 3 Whether the appellants established a risk in their country of nationality (Latvia) such that they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD did not err in disjoining the appellants' claims because it had discretion under Rule 70, gave notice and opportunity to be heard, properly considered the factors under Rule 56(5), and no claim was made against Latvia so the appellants failed to establish status as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection; therefore the RAD dismisses the appeal under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • RAD confirms the RPD's negative determination that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act