TB9-10679

TB9-10679

The RAD found the RPD erred in concluding the PA's omission about her grandfather was not reasonably explained and in drawing a negative credibility inference; accepting the appellants' otherwise credible testimony and country information, the RAD found the in-laws have the intent and capacity to locate and harm the appellants, that IFAs were not safe, and that state protection was unavailable, and accordingly substituted a decision that the appellants are Convention refugees under subsection 111(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-10679
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; substituted decision that appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to subsection 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, State Protection, Forced Conversion, Persecution Based on Religion
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility State Protection Forced Conversion +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the omission regarding the PA's grandfather and family notoriety was reasonably explained
  2. 2 Whether the RPD's negative credibility inference was justified
  3. 3 Whether the psychotherapist report and requirement for corroboration were properly rejected

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred in concluding the PA's omission about her grandfather was not reasonably explained and in drawing a negative credibility inference; accepting the appellants' otherwise credible testimony and country information, the RAD found the in-laws have the intent and capacity to locate and harm the appellants, that IFAs were not safe, and that state protection was unavailable, and accordingly substituted a decision that the appellants are Convention refugees under subsection 111(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; substituted decision that appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to subsection 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • The Refugee Protection Division decision dated March 21, 2019 is set aside.
  • Substitute decision: the appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to subsection 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.