TB9-18436

TB9-18436

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant failed to meet his burden to establish past persecution or a real risk of persecution on return, failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence, and failed to satisfy the statutory test to admit new evidence; therefore the RPD's negative refugee determination was correct.

Citation
TB9-18436
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Intervener: Minister of Public Safety
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / RAD Decision (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence, State Protection, Roma Discrimination, Exclusion Clause, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Criminal Exclusion/article 1 F Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Admissibility of New Evidence State Protection Roma Discrimination +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Public Safety

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / RAD Decision (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing risk and country conditions for a Roma claimant from Hungary
  2. 2 Whether proposed new evidence meets the statutory test for admission before the RAD (s110(4) IRPA)
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is excluded under s98/Article 1F(b) because of alleged criminality

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant failed to meet his burden to establish past persecution or a real risk of persecution on return, failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence, and failed to satisfy the statutory test to admit new evidence; therefore the RPD's negative refugee determination was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.