TB8-26704

TB8-26704

For the Kazakhstan nationals the RAD found the claimed forward‑looking risks speculative (husband not a Kazakh resident/citizen, no evidence he could enter Kazakhstan or obtain custody) and that adequate legal remedies and services exist in Kazakhstan, so the RPD decision was confirmed and appeal dismissed. For the Pakistan nationals the RAD found credible evidence of past domestic violence, the father’s Pakistani nationality and access to Pakistan, corroborating documentary evidence, country conditions showing continued risk of forced marriage, honour killings and ineffective police response, and no viable internal flight alternative for young female children, and therefore substituted...

Citation
TB8-26704
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister; Decision‑maker: Kimberley Foreman
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Split decision: appeals of Kazakh nationals dismissed; appeals of Pakistani nationals allowed and RAD substituted a finding that they are Convention refugees pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Gender Based Persecution, State Protection, Forced Marriage, Honour Killings, Child Protection, Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Family Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Gender Based Persecution State Protection Forced Marriage +4 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Kimberley Foreman

Decision‑maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether there is forward‑looking risk on return to Kazakhstan and Pakistan
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

For the Kazakhstan nationals the RAD found the claimed forward‑looking risks speculative (husband not a Kazakh resident/citizen, no evidence he could enter Kazakhstan or obtain custody) and that adequate legal remedies and services exist in Kazakhstan, so the RPD decision was confirmed and appeal dismissed. For the Pakistan nationals the RAD found credible evidence of past domestic violence, the father’s Pakistani nationality and access to Pakistan, corroborating documentary evidence, country conditions showing continued risk of forced marriage, honour killings and ineffective police response, and no viable internal flight alternative for young female children, and therefore substituted...

Court Disposition

Split decision: appeals of Kazakh nationals dismissed; appeals of Pakistani nationals allowed and RAD substituted a finding that they are Convention refugees pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD confirms the RPD decision and dismisses the appeal of the Appellants who are citizens of Kazakhstan.
  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants who are citizens of Pakistan are Convention refugees.