TB7-05202

TB7-05202

The refused 8 February documents could not reasonably have been presented to the RPD due to the RPD's refusal and meet s.110(4); the Singh/Raza factors (credibility, relevance, newness) are satisfied for both s.110(4) and Rule 29 materials; although identity witnesses' evidence might merit an oral hearing, the RAD cannot resolve merits sufficiently on the existing record and therefore must refer the appeals back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c).

Citation
TB7-05202
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spousal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Male Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Female Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal — Redetermination Following Federal Court Judicial Review / Redetermination by Refugee Appeal Division After Federal Court Remittal
Outcome
Appeals allowed and referred back to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Admissibility of Evidence, Identity Verification, Rule 29 Applications, Judicial Review, Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Admissibility of Evidence Identity Verification Rule 29 Applications Judicial Review +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Spousal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Male Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Female Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal — Redetermination Following Federal Court Judicial Review / Redetermination by Refugee Appeal Division After Federal Court Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness by refusing documents submitted on 8 February 2017
  2. 2 Whether the documents meet the statutory test for new evidence under s.110(4) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether documents filed under Rule 29 are admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The refused 8 February documents could not reasonably have been presented to the RPD due to the RPD's refusal and meet s.110(4); the Singh/Raza factors (credibility, relevance, newness) are satisfied for both s.110(4) and Rule 29 materials; although identity witnesses' evidence might merit an oral hearing, the RAD cannot resolve merits sufficiently on the existing record and therefore must refer the appeals back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c).

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed and referred back to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

Orders

  • Proposed documents filed on 8 February 2017 accepted as new evidence under s.110(4) and admitted for the appeal.
  • Documents submitted under Rule 29 accepted; DHL envelope documents included as part of Exhibit P-3 under Rule 52.