TB8-11445

TB8-11445

RAD concluded RPD erred by treating the JA's risk as generalized and by selectively applying documentary evidence regarding IFA; new documents were inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA and allegations of incompetent counsel were unproven; given individualized targeting by MS-13, lack of state protection and inability to internally relocate, RAD set aside the RPD decision and found the appellants are persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB8-11445
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Junior Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside; appellants found to be persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, New Evidence, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Gang Violence, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Administrative Law Credibility New Evidence Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Gang Violence +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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Junior Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Credibility of Principal Appellant's work history
  3. 3 Whether Junior Appellant faced individualized risk or only generalized risk

Ratio Decidendi

RAD concluded RPD erred by treating the JA's risk as generalized and by selectively applying documentary evidence regarding IFA; new documents were inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA and allegations of incompetent counsel were unproven; given individualized targeting by MS-13, lack of state protection and inability to internally relocate, RAD set aside the RPD decision and found the appellants are persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside; appellants found to be persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA, the RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the appellants are persons in need of protection
  • Application to admit new evidence denied as inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA