MB9-16885

MB9-16885

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the claimant presented no new admissible evidence warranting an oral hearing, and the RPD did not err: the claimant failed to prove on the required standard that the August 11, 2017 attack was linked to a protected ground or that he faces a personalized prospective risk on return; omissions and speculative assertions undermined credibility and the documentary record did not establish persecution or need for protection.

Citation
MB9-16885
Parties
Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Decision (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Procedural Fairness / Natural Justice, Standard of Review, Admissibility of Evidence, Serious Possibility of Persecution, Personalized Risk
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Procedural Fairness / Natural Justice Standard of Review +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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Decision (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral hearing should be held under s.110(6) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred by denying documentary evidence
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred by dismissing the claimant's testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the claimant presented no new admissible evidence warranting an oral hearing, and the RPD did not err: the claimant failed to prove on the required standard that the August 11, 2017 attack was linked to a protected ground or that he faces a personalized prospective risk on return; omissions and speculative assertions undermined credibility and the documentary record did not establish persecution or need for protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Confirm RPD determination that the claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA