TB9-18627

TB9-18627

The RAD allowed the appeals of the Principal, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Minor Appellants because the RPD erred in discrediting the disavowal letter and notarized support letters, misapplied jurisdictional facts regarding Palestinian Authority arrests, and failed to properly assess persecution on the basis of ethnicity, state protection and internal flight alternative; as a result the RAD found on the balance of probabilities that those appellants face a serious possibility of persecution as Palestinians in the West Bank and are Convention refugees. The RAD dismissed the appeal of the Second Appellant because she is a Jordanian citizen who presented a valid passport and had no credible fear...

Citation
TB9-18627
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Second Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Third Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Fourth Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Fifth Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) on Appeal From RPD Decision
Outcome
Split decision: appeal dismissed for Second Appellant; appeals allowed for Principal, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Minor Appellants and RAD substituted decision that those appellants are Convention refugees
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Persecution Based on Ethnicity, Corroborative Evidence and Letters
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Credibility Assessment State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Second Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Third Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Fourth Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Fifth Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) on Appeal From RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RPD erred in credibility assessment
  2. 2 Weight to be given to letter of disavowal and support letters
  3. 3 Whether Second Appellant is protected by her country of nationality (Jordan)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeals of the Principal, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Minor Appellants because the RPD erred in discrediting the disavowal letter and notarized support letters, misapplied jurisdictional facts regarding Palestinian Authority arrests, and failed to properly assess persecution on the basis of ethnicity, state protection and internal flight alternative; as a result the RAD found on the balance of probabilities that those appellants face a serious possibility of persecution as Palestinians in the West Bank and are Convention refugees. The RAD dismissed the appeal of the Second Appellant because she is a Jordanian citizen who presented a valid passport and had no credible fear...

Court Disposition

Split decision: appeal dismissed for Second Appellant; appeals allowed for Principal, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Minor Appellants and RAD substituted decision that those appellants are Convention refugees

Orders

  • Dismiss appeal of Second Appellant and confirm RPD decision that she is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
  • Allow appeals of Principal, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Minor Appellants and substitute decision that they are Convention refugees