TB6-12594

TB6-12594

RAD admitted specified new evidence as meeting s110(4), found RPD made multiple erroneous adverse credibility and factual findings, concluded Appellants were generally credible, that Doura was not a viable internal flight alternative for these elderly and medically impaired claimants and that adequate state protection in Iraq is lacking; on balance of probabilities Appellants would face a risk to life and are persons in need of protection under s97(1) IRPA, therefore the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted its own under s111(1)(b).

Citation
TB6-12594
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Secondary Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (immigration and Refugee Board Refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad Substituted Determination)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted by RAD determination that Appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Procedural Fairness, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Admissibility of New Evidence, State Protection, Refugee Protection Under IRPA S97
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Internal Flight Alternative Procedural Fairness Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Admissibility of New Evidence +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Secondary Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (immigration and Refugee Board Refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad Substituted Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new evidence meets subsection 110(4) IRPA and should be admitted on appeal
  2. 2 Whether former counsel's alleged incompetence breached procedural fairness and prejudiced the claim
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants were credible on a balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

RAD admitted specified new evidence as meeting s110(4), found RPD made multiple erroneous adverse credibility and factual findings, concluded Appellants were generally credible, that Doura was not a viable internal flight alternative for these elderly and medically impaired claimants and that adequate state protection in Iraq is lacking; on balance of probabilities Appellants would face a risk to life and are persons in need of protection under s97(1) IRPA, therefore the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted its own under s111(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted by RAD determination that Appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA the Refugee Appeal Division sets aside the Refugee Protection Division decision and substitutes its determination that the Appellants are persons in need of protection