MB7-24799

MB7-24799

The RPD's finding that the Appellant's experience amounted to discrimination but not persecution was correct because he had access to medical care and adapted schooling, the adverse treatment was limited to taunts and remarks that did not produce substantially prejudicial consequences, there was no evidence he faced forced marriage, the minor had testimonial capacity and counsel did not object, and the best interests principle does not alter the statutory tests under IRPA; therefore the RPD decision denying refugee protection to the Appellant is confirmed.

Citation
MB7-24799
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative (mother): XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Best Interests of the Child, Family Unity, Forced Marriage, Persecution Vs Discrimination, Testimonial Capacity
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Child Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Best Interests of the Child Family Unity Forced Marriage +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative (mother)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether discrimination experienced by the Appellant in Lebanon amounted to persecution
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred by having the minor Appellant testify
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to consider the best interests of the child and family unity

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's finding that the Appellant's experience amounted to discrimination but not persecution was correct because he had access to medical care and adapted schooling, the adverse treatment was limited to taunts and remarks that did not produce substantially prejudicial consequences, there was no evidence he faced forced marriage, the minor had testimonial capacity and counsel did not object, and the best interests principle does not alter the statutory tests under IRPA; therefore the RPD decision denying refugee protection to the Appellant is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; confirmation that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA.