TB4-12462

TB4-12462

The RPD's adverse credibility findings on multiple issues were not supported by evidence or adequate reasons; because the Reasons did not permit meaningful review the RAD lacked confidence in the RPD decision and, pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA, referred the matter to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently‑constituted panel.

Citation
TB4-12462
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXXXX; Spouse (appellant): XXXXXXXXXX; Child (appellant): XXXXXXXX; Child (appellant): XXXXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal RAD Review of RPD Decision / Appeal Heard by Rad; Matter Referred to RPD for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel Pursuant to S.111(1)(c) IRPA
Outcome
Referral to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently‑constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Reasons for Decision, Maldonado Presumption, Natural Justice, Referral for Re Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Reasons for Decision Maldonado Presumption Natural Justice Referral for Re Determination

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXXXXXXXX

Spouse (appellant)

XXXXXXXX

Child (appellant)

XXXXXX

Child (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal RAD Review of RPD Decision / Appeal Heard by Rad; Matter Referred to RPD for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel Pursuant to S.111(1)(c) IRPA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and supported by evidence
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to apply the Maldonado presumption that sworn testimony is presumed true absent reasons to doubt it
  3. 3 Whether the RPD provided adequate reasons to permit meaningful appellate review

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's adverse credibility findings on multiple issues were not supported by evidence or adequate reasons; because the Reasons did not permit meaningful review the RAD lacked confidence in the RPD decision and, pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA, referred the matter to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently‑constituted panel.

Court Disposition

Referral to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently‑constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • Refer the matter to the Refugee Protection Division for re‑determination by a differently‑constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA