MB8-15302

MB8-15302

After independent review and consideration of documentary evidence regarding stateless Palestinians in Saudi Arabia, the RAD concluded the RPD erred and substituted a decision that the Principal Appellant and one Minor Appellant (stateless Palestinians) are persons in need of protection; the appeal of the US‑citizen Minor Appellant was dismissed for failure to establish sections 96 or 97 claims against the United States.

Citation
MB8-15302
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (stateless): XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (us Citizen): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent/minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Panel Member / Decision Maker: Pasquale Fiorino
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division — Determination Issued
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: Principal Appellant and one Minor Appellant (stateless Palestinians) found persons in need of protection; appeal of Minor Appellant who is a US citizen dismissed
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Person in Need of Protection, Country of Reference, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Nationality and Statelessness Refugee Protection Person in Need of Protection Country of Reference 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (stateless)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (us Citizen)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent/minister

Pasquale Fiorino

Panel Member / Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division — Determination Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are persons in need of protection under the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in finding no risk or discrimination against stateless Palestinians in Saudi Arabia
  3. 3 Whether sections 96 and 97 claims against the United States were established by the Minor Appellant (US citizen)

Ratio Decidendi

After independent review and consideration of documentary evidence regarding stateless Palestinians in Saudi Arabia, the RAD concluded the RPD erred and substituted a decision that the Principal Appellant and one Minor Appellant (stateless Palestinians) are persons in need of protection; the appeal of the US‑citizen Minor Appellant was dismissed for failure to establish sections 96 or 97 claims against the United States.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: Principal Appellant and one Minor Appellant (stateless Palestinians) found persons in need of protection; appeal of Minor Appellant who is a US citizen dismissed

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA, the RAD sets aside the determination of the RPD and substitutes that the Principal Appellant and the stateless Minor Appellant are persons in need of protection.
  • The appeal of the Minor Appellant who is a United States citizen is dismissed.