VC0-00555

VC0-00555

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD found no breach of procedural fairness, refused to admit the proposed new documentary evidence as it did not meet statutory or jurisprudential criteria, and concluded on correctness review that objective documentary evidence demonstrates adequate and operationally effective state protection in France; therefore the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and there was no need to assess the Philippines.

Citation
VC0-00555
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal — Reasons for Decision (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed.
Legal Topics
State Protection, New Evidence Admissibility, Adjournment/adjournment Request, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review, Multiple Nationality Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection New Evidence Admissibility Adjournment/adjournment Request Procedural Fairness Standard of Review +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal — Reasons for Decision (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence on appeal is admissible under IRPA
  2. 2 Whether denial of adjournment breached procedural fairness
  3. 3 Whether state protection in France is adequate and operationally effective

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD found no breach of procedural fairness, refused to admit the proposed new documentary evidence as it did not meet statutory or jurisprudential criteria, and concluded on correctness review that objective documentary evidence demonstrates adequate and operationally effective state protection in France; therefore the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and there was no need to assess the Philippines.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed; Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.