TB6-07113

TB6-07113

The RPD's adverse credibility findings were unsustainable because the panel engaged in a microscopic and contextualy flawed assessment and ignored important testimony; the newspaper article met s.110(4) and was admissible but was not, if accepted, sufficient to allow RAD to accept or reject the claim without hearing further oral evidence; therefore RAD allowed the appeal in part and referred the matter back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel under s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Citation
TB6-07113
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision to Allow Appeal in Part and Refer Matter Back to RPD for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; RPD decision set aside to the extent necessary and matter referred back to RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)), Oral Hearing Under S.110(6), Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Country Evidence, Remedy: Referral for Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)) Oral Hearing Under S.110(6) Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Country Evidence +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision to Allow Appeal in Part and Refer Matter Back to RPD for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the principal Appellant
  2. 2 Whether the newspaper article is admissible new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing is required under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's adverse credibility findings were unsustainable because the panel engaged in a microscopic and contextualy flawed assessment and ignored important testimony; the newspaper article met s.110(4) and was admissible but was not, if accepted, sufficient to allow RAD to accept or reject the claim without hearing further oral evidence; therefore RAD allowed the appeal in part and referred the matter back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel under s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; RPD decision set aside to the extent necessary and matter referred back to RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel

Orders

  • Admit the newspaper article "Female Genital Mutilation: Growing Incidence Generates Fresh Concern" (The Nigerian Observer, June 3, 2016) as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA, allow the appeal in part and refer the matter back to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel