TB6-09322

TB6-09322

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the Appellant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection in Italy with clear and convincing evidence and the RPD's adverse credibility and state protection findings were supportable on the record (notwithstanding a single erroneous inference regarding delay), therefore the claim as found by the RPD must stand.

Citation
TB6-09322
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final RAD Decision (appeal Heard on Record; No New Evidence; No Oral Hearing Requested)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, State Protection Analysis, Gender Guidelines and Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review and Deference, Burden of Proof to Rebut State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment State Protection Analysis Gender Guidelines and Procedural Fairness Standard of Review and Deference Burden of Proof to Rebut State Protection

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child

XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final RAD Decision (appeal Heard on Record; No New Evidence; No Oral Hearing Requested)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the Appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to apply the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines appropriately
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant rebutted the presumption of state protection in Italy by clear and convincing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the Appellant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection in Italy with clear and convincing evidence and the RPD's adverse credibility and state protection findings were supportable on the record (notwithstanding a single erroneous inference regarding delay), therefore the claim as found by the RPD must stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated June 27, 2016 is confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA
  • No remand; appeal dismissed