TB5-06013

TB5-06013

The RAD found the RPD erred in significant aspects of its documentary analysis and some credibility findings; the proposed new evidence was excluded because it was reasonably available before rejection and lacked explanation for not being produced earlier; no oral hearing was warranted absent new evidence; because material errors and remaining credibility conflicts exist the appropriate remedy is to refer the matter under s.111(1)(c) IRPA to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

Citation
TB5-06013
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Secondary Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Referral to Refugee Protection Division for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; matter referred to Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently-constituted panel
Legal Topics
Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Findings, Oral Hearing Discretion, Appellate Role of RAD, Referral for Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Findings Oral Hearing Discretion Appellate Role of RAD Referral for Redetermination

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Secondary Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Referral to Refugee Protection Division for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and was admissible on appeal
  2. 2 Whether an oral hearing should be granted under s.110(6) IRPA
  3. 3 Proper appellate role of the RAD following Huruglica

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred in significant aspects of its documentary analysis and some credibility findings; the proposed new evidence was excluded because it was reasonably available before rejection and lacked explanation for not being produced earlier; no oral hearing was warranted absent new evidence; because material errors and remaining credibility conflicts exist the appropriate remedy is to refer the matter under s.111(1)(c) IRPA to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; matter referred to Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently-constituted panel

Orders

  • Refer matter to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA
  • Do not accept the documents tendered on appeal as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA