TB8-33615

TB8-33615

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the Principal Appellant is excluded under Article 1E/section 98 IRPA because she possessed permanent resident status in South Africa substantially similar to nationals and the RPD's findings on status and state protection were reasonable; the minor Appellant does not face a serious possibility of persecution or other danger and is not a person in need of protection; errors identified (failure to explicitly assess some risks and xenophobia evidence) were not fatal to the decision and the RAD would not substitute a contrary finding given the lack of substantiated risk or lack of state protection.

Citation
TB8-33615
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, State Protection, Xenophobia, Credibility, Well Founded Fear, Application of Zeng Test
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Article 1 E Exclusion State Protection Xenophobia Credibility Well Founded Fear +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E due to permanent resident status in South Africa
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to assess the PA's risk in South Africa when applying Article 1E/Zeng
  3. 3 Whether state protection in South Africa is operationally adequate for the Appellants

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the Principal Appellant is excluded under Article 1E/section 98 IRPA because she possessed permanent resident status in South Africa substantially similar to nationals and the RPD's findings on status and state protection were reasonable; the minor Appellant does not face a serious possibility of persecution or other danger and is not a person in need of protection; errors identified (failure to explicitly assess some risks and xenophobia evidence) were not fatal to the decision and the RAD would not substitute a contrary finding given the lack of substantiated risk or lack of state protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD confirms the RPD determination that the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection; appeal dismissed.