TB8-30237

TB8-30237

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to rebut the presumption that Costa Rican authorities would provide adequate state protection with the clear and convincing evidence required; his allegations lacked a sufficient nexus to Convention grounds, the proposed new evidence was inadmissible or irrelevant, and alleged counsel deficiencies did not produce a reasonable probability of a different result.

Citation
TB8-30237
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to RAD / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision (affirmation Hearing)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, New Evidence Admissibility, Procedural Fairness, Personal Risk Assessment, Nexus to Convention Grounds
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection New Evidence Admissibility Procedural Fairness Personal Risk Assessment Nexus to Convention Grounds

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to RAD / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision (affirmation Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the appellant has rebutted the presumption of adequate state protection in Costa Rica

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to rebut the presumption that Costa Rican authorities would provide adequate state protection with the clear and convincing evidence required; his allegations lacked a sufficient nexus to Convention grounds, the proposed new evidence was inadmissible or irrelevant, and alleged counsel deficiencies did not produce a reasonable probability of a different result.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • All proposed new evidence denied admission on appeal