MB5-04593

MB5-04593

The RAD found the RPD erred by overemphasizing peripheral credibility issues and improperly discounting corroborative evidence and country conditions; on balance of probabilities the Principal Appellant established a real risk of persecution in Ukraine based on imputed political opinion linked to Russian-supported separatism and could be located in Kiev, therefore there was no viable IFA and she qualifies as a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA; the RPD's decision is set aside and substituted accordingly while the associated child's claim is confirmed as dismissed.

Citation
MB5-04593
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant (child): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed for Principal Appellant; appeal dismissed for associated child
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Imputed Political Opinion, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination Imputed Political Opinion Country Conditions

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant (child)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the RPD err in its credibility assessment of the Principal Appellant?
  2. 2 Is Kiev a viable internal flight alternative for the Principal Appellant?
  3. 3 Whether the Principal Appellant qualifies as a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred by overemphasizing peripheral credibility issues and improperly discounting corroborative evidence and country conditions; on balance of probabilities the Principal Appellant established a real risk of persecution in Ukraine based on imputed political opinion linked to Russian-supported separatism and could be located in Kiev, therefore there was no viable IFA and she qualifies as a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA; the RPD's decision is set aside and substituted accordingly while the associated child's claim is confirmed as dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed for Principal Appellant; appeal dismissed for associated child

Orders

  • Set aside the RPD determination regarding XXXX XXXX and substitute a determination that she is a Convention refugee pursuant to s.96 of the IRPA
  • Confirm the RPD determination regarding XXXX XXXX (the child) that she is neither a Convention refugee pursuant to s.96 of IRPA nor a person in need of protection pursuant to s.97 of IRPA