TB8-26235

TB8-26235

The RAD found that the RPD made material legal and analytical errors: although it correctly identified credibility problems, it failed to adequately consider corroborative evidence and to properly apply Shamlou/Zeng factors and Canada's international obligations in the Article 1E analysis; because those errors cannot be corrected on the record, the RAD allowed the appeals of the two adult appellants and referred their claims to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently constituted panel, while dismissing the minor appellant's appeal and confirming the RPD's finding that he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TB8-26235
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal; Referral and Confirmation Orders Issued
Outcome
Partial allowance: two adult appellants' appeals allowed and referred for re‑determination; minor appellant's appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Permanent Resident Status, Re‑determination by RPD
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Article 1 E Exclusion Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination Permanent Resident Status Re‑determination by RPD

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal; Referral and Confirmation Orders Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants were excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E due to loss of Brazilian permanent resident status
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its adverse credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the risk of persecution on return to Haiti

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found that the RPD made material legal and analytical errors: although it correctly identified credibility problems, it failed to adequately consider corroborative evidence and to properly apply Shamlou/Zeng factors and Canada's international obligations in the Article 1E analysis; because those errors cannot be corrected on the record, the RAD allowed the appeals of the two adult appellants and referred their claims to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently constituted panel, while dismissing the minor appellant's appeal and confirming the RPD's finding that he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Partial allowance: two adult appellants' appeals allowed and referred for re‑determination; minor appellant's appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals of principal and associate appellants allowed and matters referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re‑determination by a differently constituted panel (paragraph 111(1)(c) IRPA)
  • Appeal of minor appellant dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection (paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA)