VC1-01860

VC1-01860

The appeal is allowed and the RPD decision is substituted because the Respondents failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection in the Netherlands: they never sought police protection against the named agents of persecution, produced no evidence of police complicity or inability to protect them, allegations of counsel incompetence did not establish prejudice, and the limited new evidence admitted did not raise a serious credibility issue or alter the outcome.

Citation
VC1-01860
Parties
Principal Respondent: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Associate Respondent: XXXX XXXX; Appellant: Minister (Appellant)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division, Rad) / Final Decision on Appeal; Substitution of RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the Respondents are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, New Evidence/admissibility, Counsel Incompetence, Standard of Review, Oral Hearing Discretion
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law State Protection New Evidence/admissibility Counsel Incompetence Standard of Review +1 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Respondent

XXXX XXXX

Associate Respondent

Minister (Appellant)

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division, Rad) / Final Decision on Appeal; Substitution of RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD was correct to find state protection unavailable in the Netherlands
  2. 2 Whether the Respondents rebutted the presumption of state protection
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of new evidence on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed and the RPD decision is substituted because the Respondents failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection in the Netherlands: they never sought police protection against the named agents of persecution, produced no evidence of police complicity or inability to protect them, allegations of counsel incompetence did not establish prejudice, and the limited new evidence admitted did not raise a serious credibility issue or alter the outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the Respondents are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Substituted decision: Respondents are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection