MB6-01773

MB6-01773

The RAD found the RPD's adverse credibility inferences and characterization of the appellants' harms as mere discrimination were unreasonable because the RPD failed to consider the cumulative effect of multiple, uncontradicted incidents and documentary evidence showing targeted risk to Hazara/Shia persons, family members of government employees, and women prominent in non-traditional sports; on the whole record the appellants established on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution for Convention reasons, state protection and an internal flight alternative were not available, and therefore the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a finding that the...

Citation
MB6-01773
Parties
Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal Decided by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Substitution of RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: appellants declared Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Persons in Need of Protection, Credibility Findings, Cumulative Persecution, Admissibility of Evidence (s.110 Irpa), Hearing on Appeal (s.110(6)), State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Persons in Need of Protection Credibility Findings Cumulative Persecution Admissibility of Evidence (s.110 Irpa) +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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Male Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal Decided by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Substitution of RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA and whether a hearing under s.110(6) IRPA is warranted
  2. 2 Whether RPD erred in credibility findings and negative inferences from multiple alleged grounds
  3. 3 Whether appellants established nexus to Convention grounds (race, religion, imputed political opinion, membership of a particular social group)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD's adverse credibility inferences and characterization of the appellants' harms as mere discrimination were unreasonable because the RPD failed to consider the cumulative effect of multiple, uncontradicted incidents and documentary evidence showing targeted risk to Hazara/Shia persons, family members of government employees, and women prominent in non-traditional sports; on the whole record the appellants established on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution for Convention reasons, state protection and an internal flight alternative were not available, and therefore the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a finding that the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: appellants declared Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and RPD determination set aside
  • Substituted determination that the appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 IRPA