TB7-06056

TB7-06056

Although the RAD found an RPD error in rejecting evidence of the existence of 'XXXX', the admitted post‑decision articles and the overall record did not rebut the presumption of state protection nor establish individualized persecution for the appellants; the RPD's conclusion that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is therefore confirmed and the appeal is dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-06056
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (written Reasons)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, State Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Country of Reference / Citizenship, Section 96 and 97 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility State Protection Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) +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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse Appellant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (written Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the RAD should admit and rely on new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the appellants rebutted the presumption of state protection in Ukraine and Egypt

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RAD found an RPD error in rejecting evidence of the existence of 'XXXX', the admitted post‑decision articles and the overall record did not rebut the presumption of state protection nor establish individualized persecution for the appellants; the RPD's conclusion that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is therefore confirmed and the appeal is dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed