TB4-01288

TB4-01288

The RAD allowed the appeal because credible new FCC fingerprint and documentary evidence admitted on appeal materially undermined the respondent's asserted identity and travel history; the RAD lacked grounds to substitute its own merit determination without a hearing, and therefore referred the matter to the RPD for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to s.111(c) IRPA.

Citation
TB4-01288
Parties
Claimant/respondent: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (aka: XXXX XXXX); Appellant/minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Division Decision Appealed to Refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal — Appeal Allowed and Matter Referred to RPD for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to s.111(c) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Identity and Misrepresentation, New Evidence on Appeal, Admissibility of Evidence, Remand for Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Identity and Misrepresentation New Evidence on Appeal Admissibility of Evidence Remand 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (aka: XXXX XXXX)

Claimant/respondent

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada

Appellant/minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Division Decision Appealed to Refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal — Appeal Allowed and Matter Referred to RPD for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent's omissions and misrepresentations undermined her claimed identity and credibility
  2. 2 Whether new fingerprint and documentary evidence admissible and determinative on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the RAD can substitute the RPD's decision without a hearing when new evidence undermines credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal because credible new FCC fingerprint and documentary evidence admitted on appeal materially undermined the respondent's asserted identity and travel history; the RAD lacked grounds to substitute its own merit determination without a hearing, and therefore referred the matter to the RPD for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to s.111(c) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to s.111(c) IRPA.

Orders

  • Refer the matter to the RPD for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to s.111(c) IRPA.
  • No oral hearing on this appeal was held as s.110(6) criteria for an oral hearing were not met given the absence of dispute to the Minister's evidence.