VC0-02706

VC0-02706

The RAD admitted limited new evidence (portions of an affidavit and an RPD letter confirming no recording) but found the new evidence insufficient to permit resolution of credibility and risk issues on appeal; because the RAD cannot properly decide the claims without re‑hearing evidence before the RPD, the matter is referred back to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently‑constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA; an oral hearing was not authorized under s.110(6).

Citation
VC0-02706
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal; Matter Referred to RPD for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel; limited new evidence admitted; no oral hearing granted.
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Credibility Findings, New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Procedural Fairness, Interpretation/translation Issues, Re‑determination and Referral (s.111 Irpa)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law International Law Article 1 E Exclusion Credibility Findings New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Procedural Fairness +2 more

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal; Matter Referred to RPD for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are excluded under Article 1E of the 1951 Convention due to loss of Brazilian permanent resident status
  2. 2 Whether the loss of status was voluntary and whether appellants can re-acquire status
  3. 3 Whether the RPD's credibility findings can be assessed absent an audio record/transcript

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD admitted limited new evidence (portions of an affidavit and an RPD letter confirming no recording) but found the new evidence insufficient to permit resolution of credibility and risk issues on appeal; because the RAD cannot properly decide the claims without re‑hearing evidence before the RPD, the matter is referred back to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently‑constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA; an oral hearing was not authorized under s.110(6).

Court Disposition

Appeal referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel; limited new evidence admitted; no oral hearing granted.

Orders

  • Admit paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Principal Appellant's affidavit as new evidence
  • Admit RPD letter dated July 2, 2020 confirming there is no recording of the RPD hearing