TB9-08334

TB9-08334

The RPD erred by drawing adverse inferences from delay and from lack of supporting documents without seeking explanations, failed to independently assess country conditions and nexus to the Convention, and improperly concluded Aden was a viable internal flight alternative; accordingly the RAD substituted its own determination that the appellants are Convention refugees under s.111(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-08334
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (immigration) / Reasons and Decision; Substitution Under S.111(1) IRPA
Outcome
Appeal allowed; substituted determination that appellants are Convention refugees under subsection 111(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Country Condition Evidence, Imputed Political Opinion, Corroboration of Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Credibility Internal Flight Alternative Country Condition Evidence Imputed Political Opinion Corroboration of Evidence

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (immigration) / Reasons and Decision; Substitution Under S.111(1) IRPA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether delay in claiming asylum in the US negates subjective fear
  3. 3 Whether failure to provide corroborating documents justified adverse inference

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred by drawing adverse inferences from delay and from lack of supporting documents without seeking explanations, failed to independently assess country conditions and nexus to the Convention, and improperly concluded Aden was a viable internal flight alternative; accordingly the RAD substituted its own determination that the appellants are Convention refugees under s.111(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; substituted determination that appellants are Convention refugees under subsection 111(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Substituted determination that the appellants are Convention refugees under subsection 111(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.