TB5-08830

TB5-08830

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the male Appellant is excluded under Article 1E/section 98 IRPA because as a Ukrainian permanent resident he possesses rights and obligations substantially similar to Ukrainian nationals; the female and minor Appellants failed to prove a well‑founded fear of persecution in Ukraine on Convention grounds, the incidents were isolated and state protection was available; therefore none qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB5-08830
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Final Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed.
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Assessment of Country Evidence, War Refugees
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Article 1 E Exclusion Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection State Protection Assessment of Country Evidence +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Final Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 1E/section 98 IRPA excludes the male Appellant as a permanent resident of Ukraine
  2. 2 Whether the female and minor Appellants qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under sections 96/97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available in Ukraine and whether incidents alleged amount to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the male Appellant is excluded under Article 1E/section 98 IRPA because as a Ukrainian permanent resident he possesses rights and obligations substantially similar to Ukrainian nationals; the female and minor Appellants failed to prove a well‑founded fear of persecution in Ukraine on Convention grounds, the incidents were isolated and state protection was available; therefore none qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
  • Designation of the male Appellant as representative of the minor maintained for this appeal