TB5-11568

TB5-11568

The RAD held the RPD's decision was flawed because it accepted the appellant's narrative as credible yet failed to make clear credibility findings and wrongly rejected nexus between TTP extortion and political opinion; accordingly the RAD referred the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel under s.111(1)(c) IRPA, while articulating factors for admitting new evidence under s.110(4).

Citation
TB5-11568
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse of Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Mother of Principal Appellant: XXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Son of Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal; Matter Referred to RPD for Redetermination
Outcome
Matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination under subsection 111(1)(c) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Nexus to Convention Ground (political Opinion), Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Standard of Review, Credibility Findings, Redetermination Under S.111(1)(c) IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Nexus to Convention Ground (political Opinion) Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Standard of Review +2 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse of Principal Appellant

XXX XXXX XXXX

Mother of Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Son of Principal Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal; Matter Referred to RPD for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding no nexus to a Convention ground (political opinion) where extortion by TTP may give rise to imputed political opinion
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in finding an Internal Flight Alternative (Karachi) given the country information
  3. 3 Whether new evidence submitted on appeal meets the requirements of s.110(4) IRPA and is admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD held the RPD's decision was flawed because it accepted the appellant's narrative as credible yet failed to make clear credibility findings and wrongly rejected nexus between TTP extortion and political opinion; accordingly the RAD referred the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel under s.111(1)(c) IRPA, while articulating factors for admitting new evidence under s.110(4).

Court Disposition

Matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination under subsection 111(1)(c) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Refer the matter to the RPD for redetermination under subsection 111(1)(c) IRPA
  • Order redetermination by a differently constituted RPD panel