TC1-20893

TC1-20893

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 IRPA and failed, on the balance of probabilities, to show risk under s.97 IRPA; there was insufficient evidence of prior or threatened physical force and spiritual compulsion was implausible; the new evidence admitted did not alter the assessment; and s.108(4) did not apply because no change of country conditions or s.108(1)(e) finding was invoked.

Citation
TC1-20893
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant (name redacted); Appellant: Oldest Child (name redacted); Appellant: Youngest Child (name redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From Refugee Protection Division Decision; RAD Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Well Founded Fear of Persecution, Risk Under Section 97 IRPA, Compelling Reasons Under Section 108(4) IRPA, New Evidence Admissibility S.110(4) IRPA, Exclusion Under Article 1 E and 1 F, Credibility Assessment, Remedies and Disposition
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Well Founded Fear of Persecution Risk Under Section 97 IRPA Compelling Reasons Under Section 108(4) IRPA +4 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (name redacted)

Appellant

Oldest Child (name redacted)

Appellant

Youngest Child (name redacted)

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From Refugee Protection Division Decision; RAD Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants established a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground (s.96 IRPA)
  2. 2 Whether appellants established risk on balance of probabilities under s.97 IRPA (danger of torture, risk to life, cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Whether family would physically or spiritually compel the Oldest Child to undergo rituals

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 IRPA and failed, on the balance of probabilities, to show risk under s.97 IRPA; there was insufficient evidence of prior or threatened physical force and spiritual compulsion was implausible; the new evidence admitted did not alter the assessment; and s.108(4) did not apply because no change of country conditions or s.108(1)(e) finding was invoked.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA
  • RPD decision denying refugee protection confirmed