TB6-13156

TB6-13156

The RAD found the RPD erred by treating a shelter letter as a major contradiction without confronting the appellants and by faulting the letter for being undated while ignoring an explanatory subsequent letter; the RPD also made an implausibility credibility finding without regard to cultural context or objective evidence. Those errors fatally undermined the credibility determination, so the RAD set aside the RPD decision and referred the matter to the RPD for redetermination under s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Citation
TB6-13156
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Referred to Refugee Protection Division for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeals allowed; decision of RPD set aside and matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Corroboration, Standard of Review/deference, Referral for Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Corroboration Standard of Review/deference Referral for Redetermination

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Referred to Refugee Protection Division for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in rejecting claims based on credibility and corroboration
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to confront appellants with material inconsistencies
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should admit new evidence and hold an oral hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred by treating a shelter letter as a major contradiction without confronting the appellants and by faulting the letter for being undated while ignoring an explanatory subsequent letter; the RPD also made an implausibility credibility finding without regard to cultural context or objective evidence. Those errors fatally undermined the credibility determination, so the RAD set aside the RPD decision and referred the matter to the RPD for redetermination under s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; decision of RPD set aside and matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeals allowed
  • RPD decision set aside