VB9-03024

VB9-03024

The RAD found the RPD erred in rejecting the claim on credibility and IFA grounds, accepted key new evidence as admissible (including post‑rejection news reports, photos and communications and Rule 29 materials), concluded the Appellants are credible, that state protection is unavailable and that relocating internally would not avoid persecution because the PA's political ambition would expose him to the cabal; accordingly the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees on a balance of probabilities.

Citation
VB9-03024
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister of Immigration: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Substituted Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees.
Legal Topics
Credibility, New Evidence Admissibility, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), State Protection, Rule 29, Political Rights Under Charter S.3
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility New Evidence Admissibility Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) State Protection +2 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent Minister of Immigration

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Substituted Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Application of Rule 29 of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules
  3. 3 Credibility assessment of claimant testimony and corroboration

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred in rejecting the claim on credibility and IFA grounds, accepted key new evidence as admissible (including post‑rejection news reports, photos and communications and Rule 29 materials), concluded the Appellants are credible, that state protection is unavailable and that relocating internally would not avoid persecution because the PA's political ambition would expose him to the cabal; accordingly the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees on a balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Orders

  • Set aside the Refugee Protection Division decision.
  • Substitute decision that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b).