VB9-05736

VB9-05736

The RPD erred in its IFA first‑prong analysis by failing to consider all credible incidents showing the Principal Appellant's family had the means and motivation to locate and harm the Appellants in Dohuk, and by ignoring objective NDP evidence on honour killings and Kurdistan relocation/security procedures that make relocation to Dohuk unreasonable; state protection is inadequate because alleged persecutors work for security forces; Article 1E exclusion does not apply because, on balance, the Principal Appellant is not excluded. Therefore the RAD allowed the appeal and found the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Citation
VB9-05736
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Adult Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Decision on Appeal From RPD Rejection
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside the RPD decision and substitutes a determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Exclusion (article 1 E), Procedural Fairness, State Protection, Credibility, Honour Killings
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law International Law Internal Flight Alternative Exclusion (article 1 E) Procedural Fairness State Protection Credibility +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 XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Adult Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Decision on Appeal From RPD Rejection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Viability of internal flight alternative (IFA) to Dohuk
  2. 2 Whether the Principal Appellant is excluded under Article 1E
  3. 3 Whether RPD breached procedural fairness regarding new evidence and questioning

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred in its IFA first‑prong analysis by failing to consider all credible incidents showing the Principal Appellant's family had the means and motivation to locate and harm the Appellants in Dohuk, and by ignoring objective NDP evidence on honour killings and Kurdistan relocation/security procedures that make relocation to Dohuk unreasonable; state protection is inadequate because alleged persecutors work for security forces; Article 1E exclusion does not apply because, on balance, the Principal Appellant is not excluded. Therefore the RAD allowed the appeal and found the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside the RPD decision and substitutes a determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA, the RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees.