Canada Case Law

MB9-22372

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD's adverse credibility finding was reasonable and not overturned on review; the appellant failed to establish that the proffered country evidence was new or relevant and failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, a personalized risk of persecution, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment if returned to Haiti, therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• New evidence admissibility
• Risk assessment
• Convention refugee status
• Protection under section 97 irpa
• Article 1f exclusion

Read case analysis

MB9-28544

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD independently reviewed the record using the correctness standard, found Abuja was not a viable internal flight alternative because the evidence established a personalized risk to the appellants there and that state protection was ineffective, rejected the proffered medical test results as irrelevant new evidence, denied an oral hearing, and substituted the RPD decision by finding the appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.

Source excerpt

• Internal flight alternative
• Protection under section 97 irpa
• Admissibility of new evidence
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

TB9-28773

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

On the evidence, even assuming the PA's account credible, the Appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the ex‑employees had continuing motivation or operational capability to locate and harm them in Abeokuta, and they did not prove relocation to Abeokuta would be unreasonable; therefore a viable IFA exists and the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Source excerpt

• Internal flight alternative
• Credibility assessment
• Risk of persecution
• Protection under section 97 irpa

Read case analysis

TB2-00464

Court

Refugee Protection Division

The Panel rejected the claim because the claimant's testimony was not credible and lacked corroboration on essential facts (sexual orientation, assaults, police complaints), the claimant unreasonably delayed making the claim after arrival, and on that basis there was no established well-founded fear on a Convention ground nor a balance of probabilities risk under s.97 IRPA.

Source excerpt

• Convention refugee
• Protection under section 97 irpa
• Persecution based on sexual orientation
• State protection
• Credibility assessment
• Gender-related persecution

Read case analysis

TA7-13278

Court

Refugee Protection Division

The Panel rejected the claimant's evidence as not credible and found documentary evidence inauthentic or insufficient; because the claimant failed to establish membership in the SCNC or corroborate alleged detentions, she did not establish a well‑founded fear of persecution for political opinion nor a more‑likely‑than‑not risk of serious harm under s.97, and therefore the refugee and protection claims were dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Political opinion
• Membership of non‑state/anglophone organization (scnc)
• Credibility and consistency
• Document authenticity
• Arbitrary arrest and detention
• Protection under section 97 irpa

Read case analysis

TA6-13249

Court

Refugee Protection Division

The panel found multiple material inconsistencies and lack of corroboration that undermined the applicants' credibility and failed to prove targeted persecution as MOCHRENHA members; documentary evidence established that violence in Haiti is predominantly generalized criminal violence; therefore the applicants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground and failed to meet the s.97 threshold for personal risk, and their claims were rejected.

Source excerpt

• Political opinion
• Membership in political movement
• Gender-based violence
• Credibility findings
• Generalized risk
• Protection under section 97 irpa

Read case analysis

VA8-02738

Court

Refugee Protection Division

The claimant is not excluded under Article 1F(b)/section 1F(b) because, although the alleged break-and-enter conduct would be serious in the abstract, the offences were committed when the claimant was under 12 in circumstances of abandonment and necessity, negating the requisite mens rea and rendering them non-serious for exclusion purposes; on inclusion, the claimant did not advance a Convention ground, his fears were generalized or related to non-Convention threats, and an internal flight alternative (Tegucigalpa) is reasonable, therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a p…

Source excerpt

• Exclusion under article 1f(b)/section 1f(b)
• Internal flight alternative
• Juvenile criminal responsibility
• Serious non-political crime
• Convention refugee determination
• Protection under section 97 irpa

Read case analysis

TA6-10532

Court

Refugee Protection Division

The panel rejected the claim because it found the claimant not credible in pivotal areas (existence and nature of the alleged long-term relationship, failure to seek or provide corroborating contact or memorabilia, implausible medical/treatment account and suspect treatment note, and the implausible role of the purported friend), drew a negative inference that the friend was an agent, and concluded there was no objective basis on the balance of probabilities for a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk of serious harm under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Source excerpt

• Sexual orientation
• Particular social group
• Credibility
• Persecution
• Protection under section 97 irpa

Read case analysis

Taruvinga v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court upheld the Board’s credibility finding under s. 96 IRPA, but found a patently unreasonable s. 97 analysis for failing to consider recent country evidence.

• Convention refugee determination
• Protection under section 97 irpa
• Credibility findings
• Procedural fairness
• Remission to tribunal
• Refugee-law

Read case analysis