MB9-09159

MB9-09159

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD erred in its credibility analysis by failing to apply the Maldonado presumption of truthfulness and by making implausibility findings and negative inferences without adequate evidentiary support; although some RPD remarks were harsh, there was no disqualifying bias; outstanding issues of state protection, relocation and prospective risk require referral to a differently constituted RPD panel for further analysis.

Citation
MB9-09159
Parties
Appellant (person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision / Reasons and Decision on Appeal; Matter Referred to RPD for Rehearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for further analysis by a differently constituted panel.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness and Bias, Presumption of Truthfulness (maldonado), State Protection, Referral to Lower Tribunal
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness and Bias Presumption of Truthfulness (maldonado) State Protection +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision / Reasons and Decision on Appeal; Matter Referred to RPD for Rehearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness and natural justice
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the appellant
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to apply the Maldonado principle of presumed truthfulness

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD erred in its credibility analysis by failing to apply the Maldonado presumption of truthfulness and by making implausibility findings and negative inferences without adequate evidentiary support; although some RPD remarks were harsh, there was no disqualifying bias; outstanding issues of state protection, relocation and prospective risk require referral to a differently constituted RPD panel for further analysis.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for further analysis by a differently constituted panel.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for rehearing by a differently constituted panel