VB8-00297

VB8-00297

The RAD determined the RPD erred by failing to assess El Salvador country conditions in light of the Principal Appellant's specific vulnerabilities; on a balance of probabilities the Principal Appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution or a personal risk to life if returned, and therefore is a Convention refugee; the RPD's findings regarding the Associate Appellants and state protection in the United States were upheld.

Citation
VB8-00297
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellants (minors): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons and Decision (rad Determination)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: Principal Appellant's appeal allowed and RPD determination set aside and substituted; Associate Appellants' appeals dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Gender Based Persecution, State Protection, Country Conditions, Credible Risk, Exclusion Article 1 F(b)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Gender Based Persecution State Protection +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellants (minors)

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons and Decision (rad Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the Principal Appellant's forward-looking risk speculative
  2. 2 Whether the Principal Appellant faces persecution or a personal risk to life on return to El Salvador because of gender, domestic violence history, gang targeting, returnee status and family extortion history
  3. 3 Whether the Associate Appellants established claims against the United States under sections 96 or 97 IRPA and whether state protection is available to them in the US

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD determined the RPD erred by failing to assess El Salvador country conditions in light of the Principal Appellant's specific vulnerabilities; on a balance of probabilities the Principal Appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution or a personal risk to life if returned, and therefore is a Convention refugee; the RPD's findings regarding the Associate Appellants and state protection in the United States were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: Principal Appellant's appeal allowed and RPD determination set aside and substituted; Associate Appellants' appeals dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 111(1)(b) IRPA RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.
  • Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA RAD confirms the RPD decision that the Associate Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.