TC0-07162

TC0-07162

The RAD allowed the appeals of the PA, the AA and the elder minor because the RPD erred in overemphasizing abandonment of pending US asylum claims and in treating family members as similarly situated without adequate inquiry; the PA's testimony was credible and corroborated by documentary evidence including a hotel owner's statement and country conditions showing continued militia violence and inadequate state protection, establishing a well‑founded fear of persecution by imputed political opinion; the younger minor (US citizen) had no identified risk or submissions explaining why she could not return to her country of citizenship, so her appeal was dismissed.

Citation
TC0-07162
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Elder Minor Appellant (age 10): XXXX XXXX; Younger Minor Appellant (age 6): XXXX XXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (substitution of Decision; Admissibility of New Evidence)
Outcome
Three appeals allowed; one appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Risk Assessment, State Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence, Safe Third Country/abandonment of Claim, Cessation/changed Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Determination Risk Assessment State Protection Admissibility of New Evidence Safe Third Country/abandonment of Claim +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Elder Minor Appellant (age 10)

XXXX XXXXXXXX

Younger Minor Appellant (age 6)

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (substitution of Decision; Admissibility of New Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Appellants face a well‑founded fear of persecution in Syria due to association with a retired general and Circassian ethnicity
  2. 2 Whether anti‑government militants pose a continuing risk in Damascus and nationwide
  3. 3 Whether the RPD properly assessed subjective fear given abandonment of pending US asylum claims and the safe third country issue

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeals of the PA, the AA and the elder minor because the RPD erred in overemphasizing abandonment of pending US asylum claims and in treating family members as similarly situated without adequate inquiry; the PA's testimony was credible and corroborated by documentary evidence including a hotel owner's statement and country conditions showing continued militia violence and inadequate state protection, establishing a well‑founded fear of persecution by imputed political opinion; the younger minor (US citizen) had no identified risk or submissions explaining why she could not return to her country of citizenship, so her appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Three appeals allowed; one appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Set aside the RPD determinations for the Principal Appellant, the Associate Appellant and the elder Minor Appellant and substitute decision that they are Convention refugees
  • Dismiss the appeal of the younger Minor Appellant and confirm the RPD decision that she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection