VB6-00315

VB6-00315

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants were credible but failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection in Costa Rica by clear and convincing evidence; the associate and minor appellants failed to show personal risk in Venezuela; most proffered new documents did not meet s.110(4) requirements or lacked relevance or weight; no oral hearing was justified; accordingly the RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is upheld.

Citation
VB6-00315
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (decision Rendered)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Section 97 IRPA (persons in Need of Protection), Convention Refugee Determination, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), RAD Hearing (s.110(6) Irpa), Standard of Review (huruglica), Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Section 97 IRPA (persons in Need of Protection) Convention Refugee Determination Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) RAD Hearing (s.110(6) Irpa) +2 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (decision Rendered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants rebutted presumption of adequate state protection in Costa Rica
  2. 2 Whether Venezuela was a viable alternative state of protection for any appellant
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should admit new evidence under subsection 110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants were credible but failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection in Costa Rica by clear and convincing evidence; the associate and minor appellants failed to show personal risk in Venezuela; most proffered new documents did not meet s.110(4) requirements or lacked relevance or weight; no oral hearing was justified; accordingly the RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • Majority of proposed new evidence excluded under s.110(4) IRPA; one minor document admitted but given little weight