TB9-33976

TB9-33976

Although the RPD breached procedural fairness by relying on state protection after excluding it from submissions and erred in treating the rape as mere discrimination, the RAD's independent review of all evidence (including admitted new evidence) established that the rape was an isolated incident over a decade old and the totality of documentary and testimonial evidence, when considered against the applicants' personal profiles and country documentation showing effective state remedies, does not establish a well-founded fear of persecution; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Citation
TB9-33976
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant; Appellants: Associate Appellants; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / RAD Decision on Appeal From RPD
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Persecution, State Protection, Procedural Fairness, Gender Based Persecution, Country Conditions, Admission of New Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Persecution State Protection Procedural Fairness Gender Based Persecution +2 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant

Appellant

Associate Appellants

Appellants

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / RAD Decision on Appeal From RPD

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness by relying on state protection after excluding it from submissions
  2. 2 Whether the Principal Appellant's rape constitutes persecution or mere discrimination
  3. 3 Whether cumulative discrimination in Portugal establishes a well-founded fear of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RPD breached procedural fairness by relying on state protection after excluding it from submissions and erred in treating the rape as mere discrimination, the RAD's independent review of all evidence (including admitted new evidence) established that the rape was an isolated incident over a decade old and the totality of documentary and testimonial evidence, when considered against the applicants' personal profiles and country documentation showing effective state remedies, does not establish a well-founded fear of persecution; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the RPD confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection