TB7-05378

TB7-05378

The RAD found some of the proposed new evidence admissible under s.110(4) given publication dates and practical inability to file before the RPD; after reassessing credibility and relevance the RAD concluded the Principal Appellant and his wife presented credible, corroborated evidence of a real risk of honour‑based persecution by Barzani clan members and thus are Convention refugees, while the remaining three appellants failed to establish credible risk; the RPD's adverse credibility conclusions regarding social media use and residence movements were not wholly displaced except where contradicted by new evidence and corroborative letters, but the RAD deferred to RPD where the RPD's...

Citation
TB7-05378
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (brother): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (sister in Law): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (nephew): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Split disposition: RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a finding that the Principal Appellant and his wife are Convention refugees; RAD confirmed the RPD decision dismissing the claims of the other three appellants.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Credibility Assessment, Honor Crimes
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Credibility Assessment Honor Crimes

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (brother)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (sister in Law)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (nephew)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and was admissible on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings and made improper inferences or relied on speculation
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to assess each appellant's claim individually

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found some of the proposed new evidence admissible under s.110(4) given publication dates and practical inability to file before the RPD; after reassessing credibility and relevance the RAD concluded the Principal Appellant and his wife presented credible, corroborated evidence of a real risk of honour‑based persecution by Barzani clan members and thus are Convention refugees, while the remaining three appellants failed to establish credible risk; the RPD's adverse credibility conclusions regarding social media use and residence movements were not wholly displaced except where contradicted by new evidence and corroborative letters, but the RAD deferred to RPD where the RPD's...

Court Disposition

Split disposition: RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a finding that the Principal Appellant and his wife are Convention refugees; RAD confirmed the RPD decision dismissing the claims of the other three appellants.

Orders

  • Pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b) the RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its determination that the Principal Appellant (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) and his wife (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) are Convention refugees.
  • Pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(a) the RAD affirms the RPD determination that appellants XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and their appeals are dismissed.