VB9-05555

VB9-05555

The RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD decision: the appellant failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution because the asserted link between his former employment and the June 2016 attack is speculative and the threats do not meet the legal threshold of persecution; the appellant's unexplained delay undermines subjective fear; post-perfection news articles were inadmissible under Rule 29 while two affidavits were admitted but do not demonstrate that similarly situated persons face persecution or justify a hearing under s.110(6) IRPA.

Citation
VB9-05555
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (rad); Reasons and Decision Issued by RAD
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision of June 5, 2019 confirmed
Legal Topics
Refugee Claim, Well Founded Fear, Persecution Threshold, New Evidence Admissibility, RAD Rules Rule 29, Section 110 IRPA, Standard of Review, Delay in Claiming Asylum, Nexus to Convention Ground (political Opinion)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Claim Well Founded Fear Persecution Threshold New Evidence Admissibility RAD Rules Rule 29 +4 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (rad); Reasons and Decision Issued by RAD

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant established an objective basis for a well-founded fear of persecution on the Convention ground of political opinion
  2. 2 Whether the appellant established subjective fear given delays in claiming protection
  3. 3 Whether additional evidence submitted on appeal is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA and Rule 29 of the RAD Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD decision: the appellant failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution because the asserted link between his former employment and the June 2016 attack is speculative and the threats do not meet the legal threshold of persecution; the appellant's unexplained delay undermines subjective fear; post-perfection news articles were inadmissible under Rule 29 while two affidavits were admitted but do not demonstrate that similarly situated persons face persecution or justify a hearing under s.110(6) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision of June 5, 2019 confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • No hearing ordered under subsection 110(6) IRPA