VB9-05842

VB9-05842

The RAD found the RPD erred by failing to give transparent, specific reasons regarding credibility and by downplaying testimonial evidence of brutal interrogations and beatings that amounted to past persecution; state protection was unavailable and internal flight alternative not viable, so the Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee. The RAD also found the RPD erred in not identifying countries of reference and in failing to adequately address the Associate's and Minors' claims, which must be remitted for redetermination. The three tendered documents were pre‑existing and not reasonably justified as new under s.110(4) IRPA and thus inadmissible.

Citation
VB9-05842
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX); Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Decision on Appeal (rad Reasons); Substitution of Determination for Principal Appellant and Remittal for Associate and Minors
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: Principal Appellant declared a Convention refugee; Associate and Minor Appellants remitted to RPD for redetermination
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Country of Reference, Credibility and Reasons, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Remittal to RPD, Designation of Representative
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Country of Reference Credibility and Reasons Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) State Protection +3 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Decision on Appeal (rad Reasons); Substitution of Determination for Principal Appellant and Remittal for Associate and Minors

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant qualifies as a Convention refugee due to past persecution and risk of future persecution if returned to Jordan
  2. 2 Whether the RPD gave adequate, coherent and transparent reasons and made permissible credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether new documentary evidence should be admitted under s.110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred by failing to give transparent, specific reasons regarding credibility and by downplaying testimonial evidence of brutal interrogations and beatings that amounted to past persecution; state protection was unavailable and internal flight alternative not viable, so the Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee. The RAD also found the RPD erred in not identifying countries of reference and in failing to adequately address the Associate's and Minors' claims, which must be remitted for redetermination. The three tendered documents were pre‑existing and not reasonably justified as new under s.110(4) IRPA and thus inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: Principal Appellant declared a Convention refugee; Associate and Minor Appellants remitted to RPD for redetermination

Orders

  • Set aside the RPD decision as it relates to the Principal Appellant and substitute RAD's determination that the Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b)
  • Refer the claims of the Associate Appellant and the three Minor Appellants to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(c)