TB4-08193

TB4-08193

The documentary record and evidentiary materials produced to the RPD do not rebut the presumption of adequate state protection on a clear and convincing standard; the appellants failed to provide new or corroborative evidence (including specifics about the alleged police relative) and delayed claiming, undermining their claim and credibility; therefore the RAD confirms the RPD decision denying refugee protection and dismisses the appeal.

Citation
TB4-08193
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (secondary): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From Refugee Protection Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility, Standard of Review (hybrid Appeal), Domestic Violence, Religious Discrimination, Request for Oral Hearing
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Credibility Standard of Review (hybrid Appeal) Domestic Violence Religious Discrimination +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (secondary)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From Refugee Protection Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding state protection available in Saint Lucia
  2. 2 Whether the appellants rebutted the presumption of adequate state protection with clear and convincing evidence
  3. 3 Whether appellants' delay and failure to claim earlier undermines credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The documentary record and evidentiary materials produced to the RPD do not rebut the presumption of adequate state protection on a clear and convincing standard; the appellants failed to provide new or corroborative evidence (including specifics about the alleged police relative) and delayed claiming, undermining their claim and credibility; therefore the RAD confirms the RPD decision denying refugee protection and dismisses the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA the RAD confirms the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
  • Request for an oral hearing denied; no new evidence admitted