VB8-06863

VB8-06863

The RPD correctly assessed credibility and evidence; the appellant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities a real and serious possibility of persecution or s.97 harm in Colombia and did not demonstrate that Chairperson's Guideline 8 was applicable; therefore the RPD's decision rejecting refugee protection was correct and is confirmed.

Citation
VB8-06863
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent); Panel Member / Decision Maker: Kim Polowek
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision Issued)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Forward‑looking Risk Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Vulnerable Persons Guideline (chairperson's Guideline 8), Convention Refugee Determination, Section 97 Harm
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Forward‑looking Risk Assessment Procedural Fairness Vulnerable Persons Guideline (chairperson's Guideline 8) Convention Refugee Determination +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Kim Polowek

Panel Member / Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing credibility of the appellant's fear and evidence
  2. 2 Whether Chairperson's Guideline 8 should have been applied and whether procedural fairness was breached
  3. 3 Whether the appellant established a serious possibility of forward‑looking persecution or, on the balance of probabilities, s.97 harm in Colombia

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD correctly assessed credibility and evidence; the appellant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities a real and serious possibility of persecution or s.97 harm in Colombia and did not demonstrate that Chairperson's Guideline 8 was applicable; therefore the RPD's decision rejecting refugee protection was correct and is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed (no further relief granted)