TB3-05841

TB3-05841

The RPD's decision was unreasonable because its credibility and plausibility findings lacked justification and intelligibility, it failed to meaningfully consider the appellant's PTSD report when assessing credibility, and it failed to determine the genuineness of police documents and to undertake a s.97 risk analysis; accordingly the RAD allowed the appeal and referred the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Citation
TB3-05841
Parties
Appellant / Person Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Intervenor / Respondent: Minister of Public Safety; Tribunal / Decision Maker: Refugee Protection Division
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division; Referral Ordered to RPD for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently-constituted panel
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Exclusion (article 1 F), Section 97 Risk of Torture/prosecution, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110), Procedural Rules for RAD Hearings (s.110, S.111), Standard of Review / Deference
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Exclusion (article 1 F) Section 97 Risk of Torture/prosecution Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110) Procedural Rules for RAD Hearings (s.110, S.111) +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Subject of the Appeal

Minister of Public Safety

Intervenor / Respondent

Refugee Protection Division

Tribunal / Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division; Referral Ordered to RPD for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility and plausibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's affidavit constituted admissible new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing should be granted under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's decision was unreasonable because its credibility and plausibility findings lacked justification and intelligibility, it failed to meaningfully consider the appellant's PTSD report when assessing credibility, and it failed to determine the genuineness of police documents and to undertake a s.97 risk analysis; accordingly the RAD allowed the appeal and referred the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently-constituted panel

Orders

  • Appellant's new affidavit inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  • Request for an oral hearing before the RAD denied