MB7-10173

MB7-10173

On the whole record and most recent documentary evidence the presumption of state protection is rebutted for persons who opposed the constitutional amendment; the principal appellant's testimony is overall consistent and plausible and, given the documentary material on Rwanda, she has a well-founded fear of persecution for political opinion, therefore she is a refugee under section 96 of the IRPA and her daughter is entitled to derivative refugee protection.

Citation
MB7-10173
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Family Member (daughter): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division After Federal Court Set Aside Initial RAD Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Persecution, State Protection, Standard of Review, Benefit of the Doubt
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Persecution State Protection Standard of Review Benefit of the Doubt

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Family Member (daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division After Federal Court Set Aside Initial RAD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding no persecution because appellant was not an influential FPR member
  2. 2 Whether the presumption of state protection is rebutted for persons opposing the constitutional amendment
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's testimony and documentary evidence suffice to establish refugee status

Ratio Decidendi

On the whole record and most recent documentary evidence the presumption of state protection is rebutted for persons who opposed the constitutional amendment; the principal appellant's testimony is overall consistent and plausible and, given the documentary material on Rwanda, she has a well-founded fear of persecution for political opinion, therefore she is a refugee under section 96 of the IRPA and her daughter is entitled to derivative refugee protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Set aside the Refugee Protection Division determination of August 7, 2017
  • Determine that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX are refugees under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act