TB9-07773

TB9-07773

The RAD independently assessed the evidence, found the RPD erred on credibility and subjective fear, accepted the appellants' sworn testimony, and concluded that objective country evidence establishes a well-founded fear of persecution in Syria on grounds including religion, membership of a particular social group and forcible recruitment; state protection is unavailable and no internal flight alternative exists; therefore the appellants meet the definition of Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA and the RPD decision is set aside and substituted accordingly.

Citation
TB9-07773
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Decision on Merits
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and substituted: appellants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Well Founded Fear, Credibility Findings, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, Forcible Recruitment, Persecution, Gender Based Violence, Particular Social Group
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Well Founded Fear Credibility Findings State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status +4 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RPD's adverse credibility and subjective fear findings were sustainable
  2. 2 Whether appellants have an objective and subjective well-founded fear of persecution in Syria
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available in Syria

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD independently assessed the evidence, found the RPD erred on credibility and subjective fear, accepted the appellants' sworn testimony, and concluded that objective country evidence establishes a well-founded fear of persecution in Syria on grounds including religion, membership of a particular social group and forcible recruitment; state protection is unavailable and no internal flight alternative exists; therefore the appellants meet the definition of Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA and the RPD decision is set aside and substituted accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and substituted: appellants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • RPD decision dated March 5, 2019 is set aside