TB9-20804

TB9-20804

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD's adverse credibility inference was materially undermined by a translator error and other analytic errors; relevant new evidence (interpreter affidavit, support letters, photographs) was admitted and, on independent assessment, the Appellants are genuine adherents of Erfan and face a serious possibility of persecution in Iran, therefore they are Convention refugees.

Citation
TB9-20804
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision on Appeal Substituted Decision by RAD
Outcome
Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the Appellants are Convention refugees.
Legal Topics
Refugee Status Determination, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence (s.110), Rule 29 Evidence, Interpreter Error, Persecution for Religion, Convention Refugee
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Refugee Status Determination Credibility Assessment Admissibility of Fresh Evidence (s.110) Rule 29 Evidence Interpreter Error +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision on Appeal Substituted Decision by RAD

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant's narrative is credible
  2. 2 Whether new evidence meets admissibility under s.110(4) of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether Rule 29 evidence should be admitted

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD's adverse credibility inference was materially undermined by a translator error and other analytic errors; relevant new evidence (interpreter affidavit, support letters, photographs) was admitted and, on independent assessment, the Appellants are genuine adherents of Erfan and face a serious possibility of persecution in Iran, therefore they are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Substituted decision: Appellants are Convention refugees