MB3-03590

MB3-03590

The RAD concluded the RPD's decision was reasonable: the documentary and testimonial evidence did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or a personal risk under s.97, nor show the appellant would be targeted because she is a woman or a single mother or perceived as wealthy; therefore the RPD's rejection of refugee protection stands.

Citation
MB3-03590
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Persecution, Risk Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Persecution Risk Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellant was not a Convention refugee under s.96 of the IRPA or a person in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether documentary evidence of violence against women in the Dominican Republic established a serious possibility of persecution for the appellant
  3. 3 Whether the appellant would be personally at risk because she might be perceived as wealthy after living abroad

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD's decision was reasonable: the documentary and testimonial evidence did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or a personal risk under s.97, nor show the appellant would be targeted because she is a woman or a single mother or perceived as wealthy; therefore the RPD's rejection of refugee protection stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RAD confirms RPD determination that the appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection