VB9-03246

VB9-03246

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the new ISF report demonstrated Lebanese authorities took the extortion complaint seriously, conducted an investigation, identified and monitored the perpetrator and thus did not establish that state protection in Lebanon was unavailable; therefore the appellants did not rebut the presumption of state protection and are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Citation
VB9-03246
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
State Protection, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, New Evidence Under S.110(4) IRPA, Credibility Assessment and Deference
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law State Protection Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection New Evidence Under S.110(4) IRPA Credibility Assessment and Deference

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the presumption of state protection in Lebanon has been rebutted
  3. 3 Whether the new evidence under section 110(4) IRPA rebuts state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the new ISF report demonstrated Lebanese authorities took the extortion complaint seriously, conducted an investigation, identified and monitored the perpetrator and thus did not establish that state protection in Lebanon was unavailable; therefore the appellants did not rebut the presumption of state protection and are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • The RAD confirms the RPD decision rejecting the appellants' claims for refugee protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA