TC3-36296

TC3-36296

The Appellant did not prove on a balance of probabilities a forward-looking, personalized serious possibility of persecution or risk of harm in Lebanon because her evidence was inconsistent and uncorroborated, the objective country evidence did not support her claim that she would be treated as a Palestinian due to her husband, the risks identified were generalized or speculative, and there was no demonstrated nexus between her age, gender, health or marital status and a Convention ground; therefore the RPD decision that she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection is confirmed.

Citation
TC3-36296
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / RAD Decision on Merits / Reasons for Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Particular Social Group, Gender Based Persecution, Risk Assessment, Country Conditions, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Particular Social Group 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / RAD Decision on Merits / Reasons for Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant established a serious possibility of persecution or risk of harm in Lebanon
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant belongs to a particular social group (woman married to a Palestinian) protected under section 96 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether gender, age or health create a nexus to Convention grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant did not prove on a balance of probabilities a forward-looking, personalized serious possibility of persecution or risk of harm in Lebanon because her evidence was inconsistent and uncorroborated, the objective country evidence did not support her claim that she would be treated as a Palestinian due to her husband, the risks identified were generalized or speculative, and there was no demonstrated nexus between her age, gender, health or marital status and a Convention ground; therefore the RPD decision that she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated July 6, 2023 is confirmed