VB9-00056

VB9-00056

The RPD did not breach procedural fairness: the hearing process allowed meaningful participation (interpretation, explanation of issues, relaxed evidentiary rules, acceptance of post‑hearing material) and the RPD correctly found the Appellants faced generalized criminal/extortion risk in Peru rather than a personalized prospective risk under s.97(1) IRPA; therefore the RAD confirms the RPD decision and dismisses the appeals under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
VB9-00056
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant (name redacted); Appellant (minor): Minor son 1 (name redacted); Appellant (minor): Minor son 2 (name redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Natural Justice, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Standard of Review, Credibility Assessment, Risk of Criminality/extortion
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Procedural Fairness Natural Justice Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (name redacted)

Appellant

Minor son 1 (name redacted)

Appellant (minor)

Minor son 2 (name redacted)

Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness and principles of fundamental justice by allowing the hearing to proceed without counsel and without adjourning
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants established a personalized prospective risk of persecution or serious harm within s.97(1) IRPA as opposed to a generalized criminal risk
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should set aside the RPD decision and remit the matter for re-determination

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD did not breach procedural fairness: the hearing process allowed meaningful participation (interpretation, explanation of issues, relaxed evidentiary rules, acceptance of post‑hearing material) and the RPD correctly found the Appellants faced generalized criminal/extortion risk in Peru rather than a personalized prospective risk under s.97(1) IRPA; therefore the RAD confirms the RPD decision and dismisses the appeals under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA