TB5-11581

TB5-11581

The RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to confront the principal appellant with a non-trivial inconsistency that was a central basis for an adverse credibility finding; that flawed credibility determination infected the RPD's risk assessment and outcome, requiring that the RAD allow the appeals and refer the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel under s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Citation
TB5-11581
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent/intervener: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal; Matter Referred to Refugee Protection Division for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeals allowed; decision of RPD set aside in part; matter referred to Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness Duty to Confront Inconsistencies, Standard of Review and Deference, Risk Assessment, Referral Under S.111(1)(c) IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness Duty to Confront Inconsistencies Standard of Review and Deference Risk Assessment +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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent/intervener

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal; Matter Referred to Refugee Protection Division for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the RPD breach procedural fairness by failing to confront the claimant with a non-trivial inconsistency before making an adverse credibility finding?
  2. 2 Whether the RPD properly considered all elements of the appellants' claims and assessed risk in light of credibility findings
  3. 3 What standard and degree of deference the RAD must apply to RPD findings on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to confront the principal appellant with a non-trivial inconsistency that was a central basis for an adverse credibility finding; that flawed credibility determination infected the RPD's risk assessment and outcome, requiring that the RAD allow the appeals and refer the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel under s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; decision of RPD set aside in part; matter referred to Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act the matter is referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel