VB6-00187

VB6-00187

RPD erred in its credibility assessment and in its characterization of evidence (unduly harsh inferences, focus on peripheral issues rather than the core of the claim, reliance on conjecture and inconsistent documentary support) and RAD cannot properly reweigh credibility on the record before it; therefore under s.111(1)(c) the matter is referred to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

Citation
VB6-00187
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Appeal Heard by Rad; Matter Referred Back to RPD for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel Pursuant to S.111(1)(c) of the IRPA
Outcome
Matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel under s.111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; RAD did not substitute its own decision.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Recusal/apprehension of Bias, Delay in Seeking Protection, Scope of RAD Review, Referral for Redetermination, Country Condition Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Judicial Review/standard of Review Credibility Assessment Recusal/apprehension of Bias Delay in Seeking Protection Scope of RAD Review +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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Appeal Heard by Rad; Matter Referred Back to RPD for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel Pursuant to S.111(1)(c) of the IRPA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD's credibility findings were reasonable and supported by the record
  2. 2 Whether the RPD member should have recused himself for reasonable apprehension of bias
  3. 3 Whether delay in seeking refugee protection in the U.S. undermines the appellants' subjective fear

Ratio Decidendi

RPD erred in its credibility assessment and in its characterization of evidence (unduly harsh inferences, focus on peripheral issues rather than the core of the claim, reliance on conjecture and inconsistent documentary support) and RAD cannot properly reweigh credibility on the record before it; therefore under s.111(1)(c) the matter is referred to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

Court Disposition

Matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel under s.111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; RAD did not substitute its own decision.

Orders

  • Refer matter to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination before a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • RAD declines to confirm or set aside the RPD decision on the record and declines to substitute its own determination due to gaps in evidence and unresolved credibility issues