TB6-04868

TB6-04868

On review of the whole record the RAD concluded that the RPD correctly found the presumption of state protection was not rebutted: Jamaica provided adequate protection to the family (safe house, armed guards, reference to witness protection measures) and therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection; the RAD confirms the RPD under s.111(1)(a) IRPA and dismisses the appeal.

Citation
TB6-04868
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant (name redacted); Appellant: Spouse (male appellant) (name redacted); Appellant: Adult child (name redacted); Appellant: Minor child (name redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
State Protection, Witness Protection Program, Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review, Appealability of RPD Findings
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Witness Protection Program Credibility Assessment Standard of Review Appealability of RPD Findings

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (name redacted)

Appellant

Spouse (male appellant) (name redacted)

Appellant

Adult child (name redacted)

Appellant

Minor child (name redacted)

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD conflated statements by Jamaican authorities
  2. 2 Whether the RPD misstated evidence or failed to refer to relevant evidence
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the Appellants' credibility

Ratio Decidendi

On review of the whole record the RAD concluded that the RPD correctly found the presumption of state protection was not rebutted: Jamaica provided adequate protection to the family (safe house, armed guards, reference to witness protection measures) and therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection; the RAD confirms the RPD under s.111(1)(a) IRPA and dismisses the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Refugee Appeal Division confirms the Refugee Protection Division's decision that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection; appeal dismissed.