MC1-08864

MC1-08864

The RAD confirmed the RPD: objective evidence and record do not support that the appellants face a serious possibility of persecution or a section 97(1) risk if returned to Indonesia; the incidents were isolated, historical, or insufficient in aggregate to amount to persecution or establish lack of state protection.

Citation
MC1-08864
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (son): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Determination)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision denying refugee protection
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Persecution, State Protection, Convention Grounds (ethnicity, Religion, Gender), Gender Related Persecution, Cumulative Discrimination
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Protection Persecution State Protection Convention Grounds (ethnicity, Religion, Gender) Gender Related Persecution +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (son)

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the discrimination alleged amounts to persecution under the 1951 Convention and IRPA section 96
  2. 2 Whether the alleged threats amount to a section 97(1) risk (vendetta)
  3. 3 Whether cumulative incidents of discrimination establish a well-founded fear of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: objective evidence and record do not support that the appellants face a serious possibility of persecution or a section 97(1) risk if returned to Indonesia; the incidents were isolated, historical, or insufficient in aggregate to amount to persecution or establish lack of state protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision denying refugee protection

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA, the RAD confirms the RPD finding that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection