TB5-09904

TB5-09904

The RAD found the RPD's credibility findings lacked clarity and factual analysis and the RPD failed to perform the required state protection analysis or to properly identify whether allegations amounted to persecution; accordingly, under s.111(1)(c) IRPA and applicable Federal Court guidance the RAD allowed the appeal and referred the matter back to the RPD for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel with instructions to fully review credibility and state protection.

Citation
TB5-09904
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Matter Referred Back to Refugee Protection Division for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, State Protection, Standard of Review, Referral for Redetermination, Persecution Analysis
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings State Protection Standard of Review Referral for Redetermination Persecution Analysis

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Matter Referred Back to Refugee Protection Division for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD's credibility findings were sufficiently reasoned
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' allegations amount to persecution
  3. 3 Whether the state is unwilling or unable to provide protection (state protection analysis)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD's credibility findings lacked clarity and factual analysis and the RPD failed to perform the required state protection analysis or to properly identify whether allegations amounted to persecution; accordingly, under s.111(1)(c) IRPA and applicable Federal Court guidance the RAD allowed the appeal and referred the matter back to the RPD for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel with instructions to fully review credibility and state protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA

Orders

  • Refer the matter to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA
  • RPD shall conduct a full review of any credibility issues arising from the oral and written testimonies of the Appellants