MC0-02034

MC0-02034

Applying the correctness standard the RAD independently reviewed the record and concluded appellants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, a serious possibility of persecution or a s.97(1) risk in the DRC due to the principal appellant's political profile or ethnicity or due to the female appellant's gender; newly admitted evidence was insufficient or inconsistent to alter that conclusion; any procedural fairness shortcoming concerning consideration of compelling reasons was not material to the decision; therefore the RPD determination was confirmed.

Citation
MC0-02034
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Decision on Appeal From RPD
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Internal Flight Alternative, Procedural Fairness, New Evidence Admissibility, Gender Based Persecution, Political Opinion, Ethnicity, Compelling Reasons Exception
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Internal Flight Alternative Procedural Fairness New Evidence Admissibility Gender Based Persecution +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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Decision on Appeal From RPD

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants established a serious possibility of persecution or a prospective risk under s.97(1) IRPA due to the principal appellant's political opinion
  2. 2 Whether appellants established risk due to the principal appellant's Gbandi ethnicity
  3. 3 Whether the associate appellant established risk by reason of her gender

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the correctness standard the RAD independently reviewed the record and concluded appellants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, a serious possibility of persecution or a s.97(1) risk in the DRC due to the principal appellant's political profile or ethnicity or due to the female appellant's gender; newly admitted evidence was insufficient or inconsistent to alter that conclusion; any procedural fairness shortcoming concerning consideration of compelling reasons was not material to the decision; therefore the RPD determination was confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated December 3, 2019 affirmed