TB8-21195

TB8-21195

The RAD dismissed the Minister's appeal and confirmed that the Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee because the RPD reasonably relied on the couple's marital profile and objective evidence to find a well‑founded fear of persecution in Pakistan; however the RAD allowed the co‑Appellant's appeal and referred her matter back to the RPD for redetermination because denial of a Visayan interpreter breached procedural fairness and affected her ability to testify about risk in Manila.

Citation
TB8-21195
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (final)
Outcome
Minister's appeal dismissed in relation to the Principal Appellant; Principal Appellant confirmed as a Convention refugee; co‑Appellant's appeal allowed and matter referred to RPD for redetermination due to procedural fairness breach
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Procedural Fairness Right to Interpretation, Internal Flight Alternative, Reavailment of State Protection, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Determination Procedural Fairness Right to Interpretation Internal Flight Alternative Reavailment of State Protection +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the Principal Appellant to be a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the co-Appellant was denied procedural fairness by lack of interpretation
  3. 3 Whether the Principal Appellant reavailed himself of Pakistan's protection by previous visits and conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the Minister's appeal and confirmed that the Principal Appellant is a Convention refugee because the RPD reasonably relied on the couple's marital profile and objective evidence to find a well‑founded fear of persecution in Pakistan; however the RAD allowed the co‑Appellant's appeal and referred her matter back to the RPD for redetermination because denial of a Visayan interpreter breached procedural fairness and affected her ability to testify about risk in Manila.

Court Disposition

Minister's appeal dismissed in relation to the Principal Appellant; Principal Appellant confirmed as a Convention refugee; co‑Appellant's appeal allowed and matter referred to RPD for redetermination due to procedural fairness breach

Orders

  • Minister's appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirming Principal Appellant as a Convention refugee pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(a) is confirmed
  • Co‑Appellant's appeal allowed and matter referred to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(c)