TB4-03608

TB4-03608

Although the RPD erred in law by categorizing the appellants' risk as 'generalized' without adequate evidentiary analysis, the RAD found that the RPD's other findings—on delay, lack of subjective fear, absence of continued repercussions since 2006, and availability of state protection—were supported by the evidence and not palpably and overridingly erroneous; therefore the RPD's decision to deny refugee protection is upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Citation
TB4-03608
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Spouse Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Child Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Standard of Intervention, State Protection, Generalized Risk, Delay in Claiming, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Standard of Intervention State Protection Generalized Risk Delay in Claiming +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Child Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in treating the risk as generalized
  2. 2 Whether the RPD breached natural justice or displayed pervasive skepticism by ignoring material evidence and sworn testimony
  3. 3 Whether the RPD made palpable and overriding errors of fact or mixed fact and law

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RPD erred in law by categorizing the appellants' risk as 'generalized' without adequate evidentiary analysis, the RAD found that the RPD's other findings—on delay, lack of subjective fear, absence of continued repercussions since 2006, and availability of state protection—were supported by the evidence and not palpably and overridingly erroneous; therefore the RPD's decision to deny refugee protection is upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD determination confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of IRPA