TB9-31473

TB9-31473

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellant failed to establish an objectively well‑founded fear or a balance‑of‑probabilities risk of persecution or serious harm on a Convention ground; the RPD afforded procedural fairness; the Appellant's 2005 medical exemption remained valid with no credible evidence of revocation or arrest warrants; the new evidence accepted was not central or dispositive and the evidence of alleged investigations was vague and speculative.

Citation
TB9-31473
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (reasons)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division upheld
Legal Topics
Conscientious Objection, Military Conscription, Procedural Fairness, Country Conditions, Particular Social Group, Well‑founded Fear, Admissibility of New Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Conscientious Objection Military Conscription Procedural Fairness Country Conditions Particular Social Group +2 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to notify the determinative issues
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant faces a well‑founded fear of persecution on Convention grounds arising from forced military service or political opinion
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in failing to examine the Appellant's profile as a conscientious objector

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellant failed to establish an objectively well‑founded fear or a balance‑of‑probabilities risk of persecution or serious harm on a Convention ground; the RPD afforded procedural fairness; the Appellant's 2005 medical exemption remained valid with no credible evidence of revocation or arrest warrants; the new evidence accepted was not central or dispositive and the evidence of alleged investigations was vague and speculative.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; RPD decision dated October 23, 2019 upheld
  • Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection