TC0-07175

TC0-07175

The presumption that Barbados as a functioning democratic state can provide adequate protection was not rebutted by the Appellants: they made no efforts to seek state protection, the objective country evidence indicates adequate state protection, and the new evidence was neither relevant nor credible; therefore the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed.

Citation
TC0-07175
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent/minister: Minister of Immigration; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal (rad Reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
State Protection, Presumption of State Protection, Credibility Findings, Admission of New Evidence, Oral Hearing Request
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Presumption of State Protection Credibility Findings Admission of New Evidence Oral Hearing Request

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellants

Minister of Immigration

Respondent/minister

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal (rad Reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants rebutted the presumption of adequate state protection in Barbados
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should admit new evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption that Barbados as a functioning democratic state can provide adequate protection was not rebutted by the Appellants: they made no efforts to seek state protection, the objective country evidence indicates adequate state protection, and the new evidence was neither relevant nor credible; therefore the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision denying refugee protection confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of IRPA