TB6-09515

TB6-09515

The RAD found the RPD's credibility findings were speculative and failed to analyze the alleged threats and availability of state protection; applying the guidance in Huruglica, the RAD concluded it could not properly determine the merits without redetermination and therefore referred the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to section 111(1)(c) IRPA.

Citation
TB6-09515
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX; Appellant Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (A.K.A. XXXX XXXX XXXX); Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX (A.K.A. XXXX XXXX XXXX)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; RAD Refers Matter to RPD for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; matter referred to RPD for redetermination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to section 111(1)(c) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, Standard of Review, Referral for Redetermination, State Protection, New Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Standard of Review Referral for Redetermination State Protection New Evidence

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 2 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX (A.K.A. XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Appellant Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX (A.K.A. XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Appellant Minor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; RAD Refers Matter to RPD for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD made erroneous credibility findings regarding alleged threats and attempted sexual assault
  2. 2 Whether the alleged threats amount to persecution or create a need for protection
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants could access state protection in Hungary

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD's credibility findings were speculative and failed to analyze the alleged threats and availability of state protection; applying the guidance in Huruglica, the RAD concluded it could not properly determine the merits without redetermination and therefore referred the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to section 111(1)(c) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; matter referred to RPD for redetermination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to section 111(1)(c) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Pursuant to section 111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the matter is referred to the RPD for redetermination by a differently-constituted panel.