MB9-01948

MB9-01948

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the appellants failed to prove a prospective risk of persecution or serious harm because the violent incidents were remote, there was no evidence of continuing or personalized threat from the alleged agent, insufficient individualized evidence of gender‑based persecution despite general insecurity in Haiti, and no nexus to a Convention ground; therefore appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-01948
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Daughter: XXXX XXXX; Appellant Son: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Son (us Citizen): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Son (us Citizen): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Prospective Risk, Gender Based Persecution, Convention Refugee Determination, Persons in Need of Protection, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Prospective Risk Gender Based Persecution Convention Refugee Determination Persons in Need of Protection Standard of Review

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Daughter

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Son

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Son (us Citizen)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Son (us Citizen)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants established a prospective risk of persecution or serious harm under ss.96-97 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether female appellants face gender-based persecution on return to Haiti
  3. 3 Whether perception of wealth as returning diaspora establishes nexus to Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the appellants failed to prove a prospective risk of persecution or serious harm because the violent incidents were remote, there was no evidence of continuing or personalized threat from the alleged agent, insufficient individualized evidence of gender‑based persecution despite general insecurity in Haiti, and no nexus to a Convention ground; therefore appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and the Refugee Protection Division decision dated December 18, 2018 is confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act