MB9-02680

MB9-02680

The RAD dismissed the appeal because, after an independent review including the hearing recording, it agreed with the RPD that the appellants were not credible on core facts and failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, a personalized prospective risk of serious harm linked to the alleged competitor; the incidents were insufficiently connected to the competitor and amounted to generalized crime risk rather than targeted persecution, so the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-02680
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Son (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Daughter (minor): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Personalized Risk, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Determination, Exclusion Under Article 1 E
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Personalized Risk Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Determination Exclusion Under Article 1 E

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Son (minor)

XXXX XXXX

Daughter (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants were credible
  2. 2 Whether appellants established a personalized risk of persecution or serious harm under paragraph 97(1)(b) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the risk alleged is generalized crime or targeted persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because, after an independent review including the hearing recording, it agreed with the RPD that the appellants were not credible on core facts and failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, a personalized prospective risk of serious harm linked to the alleged competitor; the incidents were insufficiently connected to the competitor and amounted to generalized crime risk rather than targeted persecution, so the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed by RAD pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA
  • Confirm RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection