MB5-05075

MB5-05075

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the appellant, a permanent resident of Italy, failed to rebut the presumption of state protection from Italy by clear and convincing evidence because his limited and informal attempts to seek police assistance were insufficient to demonstrate Italy's inability to protect him; therefore he is excluded under Article 1E and is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under the IRPA.

Citation
MB5-05075
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Intervenor: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) on Record; No New Evidence and No Oral Hearing Requested
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellant excluded under Article 1E and is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Article 1 E Exclusion, State Protection, Standard of Review, Police Protection, Organized Crime (mafia)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Public International Law Convention Refugee Article 1 E Exclusion State Protection Standard of Review Police Protection +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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) on Record; No New Evidence and No Oral Hearing Requested

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant is excluded under Article 1E of the 1951 Geneva Convention as implemented by the IRPA due to protection available in Italy
  2. 2 Whether the appellant rebutted the presumption of state protection from Italy
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should apply correctness standard or defer to the RPD on factual findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the appellant, a permanent resident of Italy, failed to rebut the presumption of state protection from Italy by clear and convincing evidence because his limited and informal attempts to seek police assistance were insufficient to demonstrate Italy's inability to protect him; therefore he is excluded under Article 1E and is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellant excluded under Article 1E and is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection

Orders

  • The Refugee Appeal Division confirms the Refugee Protection Division's determination
  • Appeal dismissed