TB7-13856

TB7-13856

RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted its own because the RPD erred in making adverse credibility findings: it improperly treated the appellants' departure via smuggler as implausible, unjustifiably drew a negative inference from a brief delay in claiming, and wrongly discounted credible documentary and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB7-13856
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Redetermination / Refugee Appeal Division Substitution Decision (redetermination)
Outcome
Decision of the RPD set aside and substituted: Appellants found to be Convention refugees.
Legal Topics
Admission of New Evidence on Appeal, Standard of Review, Credibility Findings, Persecution for Family Planning Policies, Convention Refugee Determination, Delay in Claiming Asylum, Documentary Evidence Weight
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Admission of New Evidence on Appeal Standard of Review Credibility Findings Persecution for Family Planning Policies +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Redetermination / Refugee Appeal Division Substitution Decision (redetermination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence should be admitted under s.110(4) IRPA and Raza/Singh factors
  2. 2 Whether an oral hearing was required under s.110(6) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether RPD erred in negative credibility findings regarding departure on passports

Ratio Decidendi

RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted its own because the RPD erred in making adverse credibility findings: it improperly treated the appellants' departure via smuggler as implausible, unjustifiably drew a negative inference from a brief delay in claiming, and wrongly discounted credible documentary and testimonial evidence of forced abortion and sterilization; objective country evidence supports a serious possibility of persecution for the Principal Appellant as a woman opposing forced abortion/sterilization and for the Associate Appellant for political opinion opposing family planning, therefore appellants meet Convention refugee criteria.

Court Disposition

Decision of the RPD set aside and substituted: Appellants found to be Convention refugees.

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA, the RPD decision dated June 29, 2017 is set aside and substituted: the Appellants are Convention refugees.
  • Admit two supplemental pieces of evidence (affidavit of husband and communications with representative) and decline to hold an oral hearing pursuant to s.110(6) IRPA.