TB8-09701

TB8-09701

The RAD accepted the credibility of the Principal Appellant and the documentary evidence, found that women comprise a particular social group in Bangladesh and that effective state protection was not available, and concluded that militants (linked via the brother-in-law) could locate and harm the Appellants even in Chittagong; therefore there was a serious possibility of persecution and no reasonable IFA, permitting the RAD to allow the appeal and substitute its own finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Citation
TB8-09701
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Determination Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Gender Based Persecution Credibility Assessment

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants qualify as Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the Principal Appellant's testimony and documentary evidence are credible
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection is available in Bangladesh

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD accepted the credibility of the Principal Appellant and the documentary evidence, found that women comprise a particular social group in Bangladesh and that effective state protection was not available, and concluded that militants (linked via the brother-in-law) could locate and harm the Appellants even in Chittagong; therefore there was a serious possibility of persecution and no reasonable IFA, permitting the RAD to allow the appeal and substitute its own finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • RPD determination dated March 27, 2018 is set aside
  • The RAD substitutes the RPD determination with a finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees