TB8-03175

TB8-03175

The RAD found the RPD erred by basing negative credibility findings for the adult appellants predominantly on absence of documentary corroboration and by insufficiently testing central oral evidence; because credibility remained unresolved and evidence was inadequately tested, the RAD could not confirm or set aside the RPD decision and therefore allowed the adults' appeal and referred their claims back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel; the RAD confirmed the RPD decision dismissing the Minor's claim on country of reference grounds (United States).

Citation
TB8-03175
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Common Law Spouse Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Decision on Appeal With Referral and Partial Confirmation
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: adult appellants' appeal allowed and remitted to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel; Minor appellant's appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Country of Reference, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Standard of Review, Remand for Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Country of Reference Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Standard of Review +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Common Law Spouse Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Decision on Appeal With Referral and Partial Confirmation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in making negative credibility findings against the adult appellants based primarily on lack of documentary corroboration
  2. 2 Whether the Minor Appellant's claim is barred by country of reference (United States)
  3. 3 Whether new evidence submitted on appeal should be admitted

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred by basing negative credibility findings for the adult appellants predominantly on absence of documentary corroboration and by insufficiently testing central oral evidence; because credibility remained unresolved and evidence was inadequately tested, the RAD could not confirm or set aside the RPD decision and therefore allowed the adults' appeal and referred their claims back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel; the RAD confirmed the RPD decision dismissing the Minor's claim on country of reference grounds (United States).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: adult appellants' appeal allowed and remitted to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel; Minor appellant's appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in respect of the adult appellants and matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(c)
  • Appeal dismissed in respect of the Minor Appellant and the RPD decision confirmed pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(a)