VB5-01280

VB5-01280

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD had raised and considered the issue of social maintenance fines during the RPD hearing, the appellants and their counsel had the opportunity to present financial evidence but failed to do so, the new documents did not satisfy s.110(4) because they were available or arose before the RPD decision, and established jurisprudence holds that fines alone are not persecutory; therefore there was no breach of procedural fairness and no serious possibility of persecution, so the RPD determination is upheld.

Citation
VB5-01280
Parties
Principal Appellant (wife): XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (husband): XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (child): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Natural Justice, Sur Place Claim, Credibility Assessment, New Evidence Admissibility, Family Planning Fines
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Natural Justice Sur Place Claim Credibility Assessment New Evidence Admissibility +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant (wife)

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (husband)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (child)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the RPD breach procedural fairness by failing to ask about appellants' ability to pay a projected social maintenance fine?
  2. 2 Whether the RAD should admit new documentary evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether imposition of social maintenance fees and related enforcement measures amount to persecution in these circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD had raised and considered the issue of social maintenance fines during the RPD hearing, the appellants and their counsel had the opportunity to present financial evidence but failed to do so, the new documents did not satisfy s.110(4) because they were available or arose before the RPD decision, and established jurisprudence holds that fines alone are not persecutory; therefore there was no breach of procedural fairness and no serious possibility of persecution, so the RPD determination is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal rejected
  • RPD decision of April 22, 2015 confirmed