MB9-30106

MB9-30106

The RPD's adverse credibility findings were legally flawed because the appellant's explanations for documentary discrepancies, omissions, delay and failure to claim asylum in the United States were satisfactory; clarifications provided were not new evidence and the statutory document proffered was not admitted; the appellant produced credible evidence that he faces a personal risk to life, rebutted the presumption of state protection in Nigeria, and no viable IFA exists — therefore on the balance of probabilities he is a person in need of protection under s 97(1)(b) IRPA and the RAD substitutes its own decision granting protection.

Citation
MB9-30106
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (s 97) / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division — Appeal Allowed and RAD Substituted Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside; RAD substitutes its own decision that appellant is a person in need of protection under s 97(1)(b) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Admissibility of New Evidence (s 110(4)), Procedural Fairness, Substitution of Decision, Section 97(1)(b) IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment State Protection Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Admissibility of New Evidence (s 110(4)) Procedural Fairness +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister of Immigration

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (s 97) / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division — Appeal Allowed and RAD Substituted Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its negative credibility findings
  2. 2 Admissibility of newly tendered documentary evidence under s 110(4) IRPA and Singh factors
  3. 3 Whether failure to conduct a s 97 analysis was a breach of procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's adverse credibility findings were legally flawed because the appellant's explanations for documentary discrepancies, omissions, delay and failure to claim asylum in the United States were satisfactory; clarifications provided were not new evidence and the statutory document proffered was not admitted; the appellant produced credible evidence that he faces a personal risk to life, rebutted the presumption of state protection in Nigeria, and no viable IFA exists — therefore on the balance of probabilities he is a person in need of protection under s 97(1)(b) IRPA and the RAD substitutes its own decision granting protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside; RAD substitutes its own decision that appellant is a person in need of protection under s 97(1)(b) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • RPD decision set aside