TB5-10723

TB5-10723

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the Appellants failed to rebut the presumption that Mongolia could provide operational state protection. The Appellants' unexplained re-availment, omission of travel to Korea/Japan from their BOCs, failure to seek higher authorities or corroborating evidence, and documentary country evidence showing investigation and prosecution of the alleged persecutor established that state protection was available; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB5-10723
Parties
Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Immigration)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Redetermination of RPD Decision / Refugee Appeal Division Redetermination (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD determination confirmed under section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility, Re Availment, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Credibility Re Availment Standard of Review

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX

Appellants

Minister (Immigration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Redetermination of RPD Decision / Refugee Appeal Division Redetermination (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its assessment of state protection in Mongolia
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants' re-availment to Mongolia undermines their claim

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the Appellants failed to rebut the presumption that Mongolia could provide operational state protection. The Appellants' unexplained re-availment, omission of travel to Korea/Japan from their BOCs, failure to seek higher authorities or corroborating evidence, and documentary country evidence showing investigation and prosecution of the alleged persecutor established that state protection was available; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD determination confirmed under section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • The RAD confirms the RPD decision that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection; appeals dismissed