VB9-03520

VB9-03520

The RPD correctly found that although the Appellants, as stateless Palestinians and noncitizens in the UAE, face discriminatory treatment, that discrimination did not cumulatively amount to persecution because they could access housing, education and healthcare and earn a livelihood without serious state‑imposed restrictions; departure was not for persecutory reasons and there is no serious possibility of persecution, therefore the RPD decision to refuse refugee protection is confirmed.

Citation
VB9-03520
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Persons in Need of Protection, Persecution, Statelessness, Country of Former Habitual Residence, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Persons in Need of Protection Persecution Statelessness Country of Former Habitual Residence +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether discrimination faced by stateless Palestinians and noncitizens in the UAE cumulatively amounts to persecution
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the Appellants' ability to return to the UAE
  3. 3 Whether denial of return constitutes persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD correctly found that although the Appellants, as stateless Palestinians and noncitizens in the UAE, face discriminatory treatment, that discrimination did not cumulatively amount to persecution because they could access housing, education and healthcare and earn a livelihood without serious state‑imposed restrictions; departure was not for persecutory reasons and there is no serious possibility of persecution, therefore the RPD decision to refuse refugee protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; RPD decision of April 17, 2019 confirmed that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of IRPA
  • Request for an oral hearing denied (no new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA)