MB9-27650

MB9-27650

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant, a dual Moldovan and Romanian citizen, failed to establish on the evidence a serious possibility of persecution or on a balance of probabilities section 97(1) harm in Romania; the additional materials were inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA and RAD Rule 29, interpretation complaints were unproven and untimely, and the RPD did not err in its country‑risk assessment of Romania.

Citation
MB9-27650
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision on Appeal (dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Section 97(1) Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), RAD Rule 29, Interpreter Quality/complaints, Dual Nationality and Multi Country Risk Assessment, Country Condition Analysis
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Section 97(1) Protection Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) RAD Rule 29 +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision on Appeal (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellant's prospective risk of harm in Romania
  2. 2 Whether new evidence meets admissibility under subsection 110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether Rule 29 material filed after perfection is admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant, a dual Moldovan and Romanian citizen, failed to establish on the evidence a serious possibility of persecution or on a balance of probabilities section 97(1) harm in Romania; the additional materials were inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA and RAD Rule 29, interpretation complaints were unproven and untimely, and the RPD did not err in its country‑risk assessment of Romania.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed