TB9-23421

TB9-23421

The RAD concluded that, on the totality of the evidence, the Principal Appellant is more likely than not a Jordanian whose U.K. status arose by misrepresentation and whose testimony and corroborating records are sufficiently reliable to establish a well-founded fear of persecution for imputed religious opinion; the RPD's identity finding was unreasonable in light of the documentary evidence and thus is set aside for the PA, while the RPD reasonably found the Associate Appellant and minors not credible and at no risk.

Citation
TB9-23421
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (appeal From Rpd)
Outcome
Appeal of Principal Appellant allowed; appeals of Associate Appellant and minor appellants dismissed; RPD decision set aside in part and affirmed in part.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Identity, Admission of New Evidence, Imputed Religious Opinion, State Protection, Misrepresentation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Identity Admission of New Evidence Imputed Religious Opinion State Protection +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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (appeal From Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant's identity was established despite evidence of prior misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether the AA and minor appellants were credible and at risk
  3. 3 Whether new evidence should be admitted under s.110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded that, on the totality of the evidence, the Principal Appellant is more likely than not a Jordanian whose U.K. status arose by misrepresentation and whose testimony and corroborating records are sufficiently reliable to establish a well-founded fear of persecution for imputed religious opinion; the RPD's identity finding was unreasonable in light of the documentary evidence and thus is set aside for the PA, while the RPD reasonably found the Associate Appellant and minors not credible and at no risk.

Court Disposition

Appeal of Principal Appellant allowed; appeals of Associate Appellant and minor appellants dismissed; RPD decision set aside in part and affirmed in part.

Orders

  • Appeals of the Associate Appellant and the minor appellants dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA
  • Principal Appellant's appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and replaced with RAD determination that he is a Convention refugee pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA