TB8-04121

TB8-04121

The RPD's adverse credibility inferences were unreasonable because an interpreter omission explained the apparent inconsistency about the church name, the RPD relied on undefined doctrinal expectations and selective objective evidence, and admitted new evidence established the key inconsistency was not probative; read as a whole the objective and subjective evidence establish a well‑founded fear and lack of state protection or IFA, so the RAD substituted its own determination that the appellants are Convention refugees.

Citation
TB8-04121
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Decision on Appeal Substituting RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and substituted
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Credibility Assessment, New Evidence Admissibility, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Religious Persecution, Gender Based Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Convention Refugee Credibility Assessment New Evidence Admissibility 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Decision on Appeal Substituting RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant's conversion to Christianity was credible
  2. 2 Whether the Associate Appellant faces persecution as a woman not conforming to fundamentalist norms
  3. 3 Admissibility of new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and Singh test

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's adverse credibility inferences were unreasonable because an interpreter omission explained the apparent inconsistency about the church name, the RPD relied on undefined doctrinal expectations and selective objective evidence, and admitted new evidence established the key inconsistency was not probative; read as a whole the objective and subjective evidence establish a well‑founded fear and lack of state protection or IFA, so the RAD substituted its own determination that the appellants are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and substituted

Orders

  • Set aside the Refugee Protection Division determination pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA
  • Substitute determination that the appellants are Convention refugees