VB8-02445

VB8-02445

The RAD held the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection in Georgia with clear and convincing evidence; the proffered three‑page WJP report extract was not admissible and did not materially differ from the evidence before the RPD; the RPD did not err in its assessment of state protection or in its treatment of cumulative persecution and credibility; therefore the RPD decision rejecting refugee protection was confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Citation
VB8-02445
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Reasons for Decision Following Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
State Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence, Cumulative Persecution, Burden of Proof, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Admissibility of New Evidence Cumulative Persecution Burden of Proof Credibility 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Reasons for Decision Following Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the three pages of the WJP Rule of Law Report were admissible as new evidence on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the appellants rebutted the presumption of state protection in Georgia with clear and convincing evidence
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in assessing Georgia's place on the 'democracy spectrum' and thereby elevating the burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD held the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection in Georgia with clear and convincing evidence; the proffered three‑page WJP report extract was not admissible and did not materially differ from the evidence before the RPD; the RPD did not err in its assessment of state protection or in its treatment of cumulative persecution and credibility; therefore the RPD decision rejecting refugee protection was confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated April 12, 2018, confirmed