TB5-08067

TB5-08067

Because a substantial portion of the principal appellant's testimony was missing from the RPD hearing record, the RAD could not adequately assess allegations of inadequate interpretation or the RPD's adverse credibility findings; no new evidence was before the RAD, and under s.111(1)(c) IRPA the proper remedy was to allow the appeal and refer the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently-constituted panel.

Citation
TB5-08067
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX (principal Appellant); Appellant (secondary): XXXX XXXX (secondary Appellant)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (referral to Refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Interpretation Quality, Recording/transcript Issues, Section 97 Protection Analysis, RAD Appellate Role
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness Interpretation Quality Recording/transcript Issues Section 97 Protection Analysis +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX (principal Appellant)

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX (secondary Appellant)

Appellant (secondary)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (referral to Refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants were denied procedural fairness by inadequate interpretation at RPD hearing
  2. 2 Whether missing portions of the hearing record prevent proper review of credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether RPD's adverse credibility findings were perverse, capricious or unsupported by the record

Ratio Decidendi

Because a substantial portion of the principal appellant's testimony was missing from the RPD hearing record, the RAD could not adequately assess allegations of inadequate interpretation or the RPD's adverse credibility findings; no new evidence was before the RAD, and under s.111(1)(c) IRPA the proper remedy was to allow the appeal and refer the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently-constituted panel.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Orders

  • Pursuant to Section 111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Refugee Appeal Division refers the matter to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently-constituted panel.