MB9-04543

MB9-04543

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the affidavit was not admissible as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA because the information was available and had been addressed at the RPD hearing; the appellants and their representative conceded they had no fear in the United States; family separation and the prospect of foster care do not constitute persecution or a risk under ss.96–97 IRPA for citizens of a country that provides state protection; therefore the RPD correctly rejected the refugee protection claims and the RAD dismisses the appeal.

Citation
MB9-04543
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, New Evidence Admissibility, Family Separation, Best Interests of the Child, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection New Evidence Admissibility Family Separation Best Interests of the Child Standard of Review

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants face a well-founded fear or risk of persecution in their country of citizenship (United States)
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit constitutes new evidence admissible under subsection 110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether family separation or inability to be cared for in the state of nationality constitutes grounds for refugee protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the affidavit was not admissible as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA because the information was available and had been addressed at the RPD hearing; the appellants and their representative conceded they had no fear in the United States; family separation and the prospect of foster care do not constitute persecution or a risk under ss.96–97 IRPA for citizens of a country that provides state protection; therefore the RPD correctly rejected the refugee protection claims and the RAD dismisses the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Confirm RPD determination rejecting appellants' refugee protection claims
  • Refuse to accept the affidavit as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA