MB7-05017

MB7-05017

The RAD found the RPD erred in its credibility and factual conclusions, accepted the appellant's evidence that he was targeted by local police due to perceived political opposition (family association and refusal to vote), concluded state protection was not reasonably available in practice (ombudsman and other remedies were theoretical and ineffective for his circumstances), found no reasonable internal flight alternative, and therefore set aside the RPD decision and substituted a determination that the appellant is a Convention refugee.

Citation
MB7-05017
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Panel / Tribunal Member: Maryanne Kingma; Respondent / Minister: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision (reasons for Decision; Substituted Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and substituted by RAD determination that appellant is a Convention refugee
Legal Topics
Well Founded Fear of Persecution, State Protection, Convention Refugee Status, Credibility Findings, Internal Flight Alternative, Political Opinion/family Association Nexus
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Well Founded Fear of Persecution State Protection Convention Refugee Status Credibility Findings Internal Flight Alternative +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Maryanne Kingma

Panel / Tribunal Member

Minister

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision (reasons for Decision; Substituted Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant has a well-founded fear of persecution or section 97 risk if returned to Montenegro
  2. 2 Whether there is nexus to a Convention ground (political opinion or family association)
  3. 3 Whether state protection is reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred in its credibility and factual conclusions, accepted the appellant's evidence that he was targeted by local police due to perceived political opposition (family association and refusal to vote), concluded state protection was not reasonably available in practice (ombudsman and other remedies were theoretical and ineffective for his circumstances), found no reasonable internal flight alternative, and therefore set aside the RPD decision and substituted a determination that the appellant is a Convention refugee.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and substituted by RAD determination that appellant is a Convention refugee

Orders

  • Set aside the determination of the Refugee Protection Division
  • Substitute a determination that the appellant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 111(1)(b) IRPA