TB5-03956

TB5-03956

The RAD allowed the appeal and remitted the principal appellant's claim to the RPD because significant deficiencies and potential authenticity concerns were identified in key documentary evidence that the RPD did not address; the RAD could not substitute the RPD's credibility determination without verification, and directed verification of the documents and a reassessment of their impact on credibility; the RAD agreed with the RPD's finding that the minor appellant is excluded under Article 1(E).

Citation
TB5-03956
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Following Refugee Protection Division Decision; RAD Decision Remitting Matter to RPD
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to the RPD for redetermination with directions
Legal Topics
Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Exclusion Under Article 1(e), Standard of Review / Role of RAD, Remittal to First Instance Tribunal
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Internal Flight Alternative Exclusion Under Article 1(e) Standard of Review / Role of RAD Remittal to First Instance Tribunal

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Following Refugee Protection Division Decision; RAD Decision Remitting Matter to RPD

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the principal appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) to Bogota exists for the principal appellant
  3. 3 Whether the minor appellant is excluded under Article 1(E) of the Refugee Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal and remitted the principal appellant's claim to the RPD because significant deficiencies and potential authenticity concerns were identified in key documentary evidence that the RPD did not address; the RAD could not substitute the RPD's credibility determination without verification, and directed verification of the documents and a reassessment of their impact on credibility; the RAD agreed with the RPD's finding that the minor appellant is excluded under Article 1(E).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to the RPD for redetermination with directions

Orders

  • Minister to intervene and verify existence and authenticity of four listed documents from Colombian officials; if Minister does not participate, RPD to request SIRU verification.
  • RPD to assess the reliability of the four documents and determine their impact on the principal appellant's credibility and the protection claim.