VB6-04255

VB6-04255

Appeals dismissed because, on independent review, the principal appellant lacks subjective fear due to an unexplained and egregious 10‑year delay, the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection in Saint Lucia, and the evidence does not meet the high threshold for compelling reasons under s.108(4); therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
VB6-04255
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming Refugee Protection Division Determination
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Subjective Fear, State Protection Presumption, Compelling Reasons Exception (s.108(4)), Delay in Claiming, Credibility Findings, Psychological Evidence, Risk of Persecution, Torture and Cruel or Unusual Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Subjective Fear State Protection Presumption Compelling Reasons Exception (s.108(4)) Delay in Claiming +4 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming Refugee Protection Division Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal appellant established a subjective fear of persecution given a 10‑year delay in claiming
  2. 2 Whether the appellants rebutted the presumption of state protection in Saint Lucia
  3. 3 Whether the compelling reasons exception in s.108(4) applies based on past persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Appeals dismissed because, on independent review, the principal appellant lacks subjective fear due to an unexplained and egregious 10‑year delay, the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection in Saint Lucia, and the evidence does not meet the high threshold for compelling reasons under s.108(4); therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act