TB5-03323

TB5-03323

The RAD accepted certain new documentary evidence under s.110(4) but found the RPD had not adequately established the factual basis for treating both Saudi Arabia and Yemen as countries of former habitual residence and had not entered national documentation; there was insufficient evidence to find bias; accordingly the RAD allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) of IRPA.

Citation
TB5-03323
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse/appellant (a2): XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Child/appellant (a3): XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division; Appeal Allowed and Remitted to RPD for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed; remitted to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Statelessness, Former Habitual Residence, Section 110 New Evidence, Section 111 Remittal, Allegation of Bias, Standard of Appellate Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Determination Statelessness Former Habitual Residence Section 110 New Evidence Section 111 Remittal +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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse/appellant (a2)

XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child/appellant (a3)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division; Appeal Allowed and Remitted to RPD for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in treating Yemen as a country of former habitual residence
  2. 2 Whether denial of return and cumulative discrimination constitute persecution
  3. 3 Whether new evidence under s.110(4) should be admitted and whether a RAD hearing under s.110(6) is required

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD accepted certain new documentary evidence under s.110(4) but found the RPD had not adequately established the factual basis for treating both Saudi Arabia and Yemen as countries of former habitual residence and had not entered national documentation; there was insufficient evidence to find bias; accordingly the RAD allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) of IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; remitted to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel

Orders

  • Matter remitted to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel and ensure proper National Documentation Packages of countries considered to be countries of former habitual residence are entered into evidence