MC2-03717

MC2-03717

The RAD confirmed the RPD did not err because the appellant's conduct (continued work and multiple international trips without claiming asylum), the content of the warning letter and police summons, and the NDP country information did not establish a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or a risk under s.97(1), and the RPD's credibility and corroboration findings were reasonable under the applicable standard of review.

Citation
MC2-03717
Parties
Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Well Founded Fear of Persecution, Risk Under Subsection 97(1) IRPA, Credibility and Corroboration, Standard of Review, Country Condition Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Well Founded Fear of Persecution Risk Under Subsection 97(1) IRPA Credibility and Corroboration Standard of Review Country Condition Assessment

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding no well-founded fear of persecution under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in finding no risk under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD misapplied standards of credibility, corroboration and country condition analysis

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD did not err because the appellant's conduct (continued work and multiple international trips without claiming asylum), the content of the warning letter and police summons, and the NDP country information did not establish a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or a risk under s.97(1), and the RPD's credibility and corroboration findings were reasonable under the applicable standard of review.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed