TB3-07679

TB3-07679

The RAD, applying a reasonableness standard, confirmed the RPD: the Minister established a prima facie case that the adult appellants remained permanent residents of Peru with rights equivalent to nationals and the appellants failed to produce corroborating evidence (e.g. consular proof or Peruvian legislation in the record) to rebut that finding; the minor's evidence of bullying and discrimination was not sufficiently serious or systematic to constitute persecution even applying child-specific standards; the Legislative Decree Article 42 was not admitted as new evidence while UNHCR materials were admissible as non-binding authoritative guidance; accordingly the RPD decision that the...

Citation
TB3-07679
Parties
Appellant: Male Appellant; Appellant: Female Appellant; Minor Appellant: Minor Appellant
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Under IRPA / Final Decision (rad Confirmation of Rpd)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Convention Refugee Status, Standard of Review, Admissibility of New Evidence, Child Asylum Claims
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Article 1 E Exclusion Convention Refugee Status Standard of Review Admissibility of New Evidence Child Asylum Claims

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Male Appellant

Appellant

Female Appellant

Appellant

Minor Appellant

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Under IRPA / Final Decision (rad Confirmation of Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adult appellants are excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E because they held status in Peru with rights equivalent to nationality
  2. 2 Whether the minor appellant's experiences amounted to persecution applying child-specific standards (UNHCR Guidelines)
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should admit and consider documentary evidence tendered for the first time on appeal (Legislative Decree No. 703 Article 42 and UNHCR materials)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD, applying a reasonableness standard, confirmed the RPD: the Minister established a prima facie case that the adult appellants remained permanent residents of Peru with rights equivalent to nationals and the appellants failed to produce corroborating evidence (e.g. consular proof or Peruvian legislation in the record) to rebut that finding; the minor's evidence of bullying and discrimination was not sufficiently serious or systematic to constitute persecution even applying child-specific standards; the Legislative Decree Article 42 was not admitted as new evidence while UNHCR materials were admissible as non-binding authoritative guidance; accordingly the RPD decision that the...

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA the RAD confirms the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
  • All appeals dismissed