MC1-10137

MC1-10137

Although the RPD made identifiable errors (including not explicitly applying Guideline 4), once those errors are corrected the appellants failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground: the 2014 physical incident was isolated and not repeated; psychological harm shown by a post‑decision report lacked objective testing, specialization and corroboration to establish persecution; threats such as kidnapping or imam‑ordered violence were speculative; viable return options existed (living with the wife's family) and no lack of state protection was shown; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed.

Citation
MC1-10137
Parties
Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Gender Based Persecution, Psychological Harm, Procedural Fairness, New Evidence Admissibility, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Guideline 4 Application, Prospective Risk for Minor and Unborn
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Gender Based Persecution Psychological Harm Procedural Fairness New Evidence Admissibility State Protection +3 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Male Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the RPD breached procedural fairness or gave inadequate reasons
  2. 2 whether the RPD failed to apply IRB Guideline 4 on gender-related persecution
  3. 3 whether cumulative psychological pressure amounts to persecution under s.96/s.97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RPD made identifiable errors (including not explicitly applying Guideline 4), once those errors are corrected the appellants failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground: the 2014 physical incident was isolated and not repeated; psychological harm shown by a post‑decision report lacked objective testing, specialization and corroboration to establish persecution; threats such as kidnapping or imam‑ordered violence were speculative; viable return options existed (living with the wife's family) and no lack of state protection was shown; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

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