MC0-09463

MC0-09463

The RAD concluded the RPD did not breach procedural fairness, appellants retained valid Venezuelan permanent resident status at the date of hearing giving them rights and obligations substantially similar to Venezuelan nationals, thus exclusion under Article 1E applied; moreover the risks alleged in Venezuela and Haiti were generalized criminality not personalized persecution under section 97 IRPA, and the associate appellant's sexual assault did not establish a claim under section 96 when assessed against Guideline 4 and contextual evidence.

Citation
MC0-09463
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division on Appeal From RPD
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Exclusion Under Article 1 E, Procedural Fairness, Risk in Country of Residence, Gender Based Persecution, Section 96 IRPA, Section 97 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Exclusion Under Article 1 E Procedural Fairness Risk in Country of Residence Gender Based Persecution Section 96 IRPA +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division on Appeal From RPD

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness and rules of natural justice by failing to properly assess the associate appellant under section 96 and Chairperson's Guideline 4
  2. 2 Whether appellants were excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E because they had status in Venezuela substantially similar to nationals
  3. 3 Whether appellants established a personalized risk in Venezuela or Haiti as required by section 97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD did not breach procedural fairness, appellants retained valid Venezuelan permanent resident status at the date of hearing giving them rights and obligations substantially similar to Venezuelan nationals, thus exclusion under Article 1E applied; moreover the risks alleged in Venezuela and Haiti were generalized criminality not personalized persecution under section 97 IRPA, and the associate appellant's sexual assault did not establish a claim under section 96 when assessed against Guideline 4 and contextual evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Confirm RPD determination that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection