TC0-02240

TC0-02240

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found that, on the balance of probabilities, the Appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a s.97 risk on return to Egypt; most proposed new evidence was inadmissible or non‑novel and the admitted WhatsApp evidence did not demonstrate a high‑profile sur place risk or alter the result.

Citation
TC0-02240
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (adult): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, New Evidence (irpa S.110(4)), RAD Rule 29, Sur Place, Section 97, Forward Looking Harm, Persecution Vs Discrimination, Citizenship Acquisition (egypt Law 26/1975)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection New Evidence (irpa S.110(4)) RAD Rule 29 Sur Place +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (adult)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (minor)

Minister

Respondent

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution or risk of harm if returned to Egypt
  2. 2 Whether discrimination alleged rises to persecution
  3. 3 Admissibility and probative value of new evidence under IRPA s.110(4) and Raza/Singh factors

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found that, on the balance of probabilities, the Appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a s.97 risk on return to Egypt; most proposed new evidence was inadmissible or non‑novel and the admitted WhatsApp evidence did not demonstrate a high‑profile sur place risk or alter the result.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed