TB6-08514

TB6-08514

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants, as Venezuelan permanent residents/citizen (minor), are prima facie covered by Article 1E; documentary evidence and the National Documentation Package show widespread generalized violent crime in Venezuela without evidence that ethnic Chinese are specifically targeted; appellants' incidents, while credible, do not establish nexus to a Convention ground or a personalized risk under s.97(1), therefore they are excluded and not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB6-08514
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (husband): XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellants excluded under Article 1E and found not to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Exclusion Under Article 1 E, Well Founded Fear of Persecution, Generalized Risk Vs Personalized Risk, Nexus to Convention Grounds (race/ethnicity), Section 97(1) Exception, Standard of Review for RAD
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Exclusion Under Article 1 E Well Founded Fear of Persecution Generalized Risk Vs Personalized Risk Nexus to Convention Grounds (race/ethnicity) Section 97(1) Exception +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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (husband)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is nexus between appellants' fear and a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether the risk alleged is generalized or personalized under section 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether appellants are excluded from protection under Article 1E of the 1951 Convention and section 98 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants, as Venezuelan permanent residents/citizen (minor), are prima facie covered by Article 1E; documentary evidence and the National Documentation Package show widespread generalized violent crime in Venezuela without evidence that ethnic Chinese are specifically targeted; appellants' incidents, while credible, do not establish nexus to a Convention ground or a personalized risk under s.97(1), therefore they are excluded and not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellants excluded under Article 1E and found not to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Dismiss the appeal pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
  • Confirm the Refugee Protection Division decision dated June 9, 2016