TC0-10446

TC0-10446

RAD allowed the appeal, found the RPD erred in key credibility and state protection findings, admitted specific new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA, concluded on a balance of probabilities that the agent of harm was powerful and state protection in Jordan was inadequate for the Appellants (including due to discrimination against Palestinians and tribal dynamics), found no viable internal flight alternative, and substituted a decision that the Appellants are persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the IRPA.

Citation
TC0-10446
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellants Minors: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / RAD Substituted Decision Following RPD Refusal (appeal Allowed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; substituted decision that Appellants are persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Internal Flight Alternative, Nexus to Convention Grounds
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law International Protection State Protection Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Internal Flight Alternative Nexus to Convention Grounds

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellants Minors

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent Minister

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / RAD Substituted Decision Following RPD Refusal (appeal Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether state protection was available in Jordan
  3. 3 Whether new evidence on appeal is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

RAD allowed the appeal, found the RPD erred in key credibility and state protection findings, admitted specific new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA, concluded on a balance of probabilities that the agent of harm was powerful and state protection in Jordan was inadequate for the Appellants (including due to discrimination against Palestinians and tribal dynamics), found no viable internal flight alternative, and substituted a decision that the Appellants are persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; substituted decision that Appellants are persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Substitute decision: Appellants are persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA