TC0-07299

TC0-07299

The RPD's adverse credibility findings about the neighbourhood committee visit were unreasonable and the RPD failed to consider evidence on proselytism and province‑specific country conditions (Hebei); because the record is insufficient to substitute a positive finding and unresolved credibility concerns remain, the RAD allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(c) and s.111(2).

Citation
TC0-07299
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal: Allowed and Remitted to RPD for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed and remitted to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Country Conditions, Freedom of Religion, Proselytism, Remittal/referral
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Country Conditions Freedom of Religion Proselytism Remittal/referral

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal: Allowed and Remitted to RPD for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RPD erred in finding the Principal Appellant was not visited by a neighbourhood committee officer
  2. 2 Whether RPD failed to consider country conditions on proselytism and province‑specific evidence (Hebei)
  3. 3 Whether Appellants would face persecution on return for practising Christianity

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's adverse credibility findings about the neighbourhood committee visit were unreasonable and the RPD failed to consider evidence on proselytism and province‑specific country conditions (Hebei); because the record is insufficient to substitute a positive finding and unresolved credibility concerns remain, the RAD allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(c) and s.111(2).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed and remitted to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(c) and subsection 111(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the matter is referred back to the Refugee Protection Division to be redetermined by a differently constituted panel.