MB6-00346

MB6-00346

RAD concluded that portions of the RPD's reasoning—specifically the inference that the appellant was not wanted by police based on implausible expectations of third‑party conduct and the failure to analyze IFA in light of appellant's fear of the police—were unreasonable or insufficiently explained; because the RPD did not adequately address probative evidence and its findings affected the IFA analysis, the RAD set aside the RPD determination and remitted the matter for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

Citation
MB6-00346
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister (no Intervening Counsel): Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Appeal Heard by Rad; Decision Rendered to Set Aside RPD Determination and Refer Matter to RPD for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and matter referred to RPD for re‑determination by a differently constituted panel
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Delay in Filing, Standard of Review, Remittal to Tribunal
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Delay in Filing Standard of Review Remittal to Tribunal

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Respondent / Minister (no Intervening Counsel)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Appeal Heard by Rad; Decision Rendered to Set Aside RPD Determination and Refer Matter to RPD for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the RPD reasonably inferred appellant was not wanted by police
  3. 3 Whether the RPD properly assessed internal flight alternative (IFA) including fear of police

Ratio Decidendi

RAD concluded that portions of the RPD's reasoning—specifically the inference that the appellant was not wanted by police based on implausible expectations of third‑party conduct and the failure to analyze IFA in light of appellant's fear of the police—were unreasonable or insufficiently explained; because the RPD did not adequately address probative evidence and its findings affected the IFA analysis, the RAD set aside the RPD determination and remitted the matter for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and matter referred to RPD for re‑determination by a differently constituted panel

Orders

  • Set aside the Refugee Protection Division decision that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
  • Refer the refugee protection claim back to the Refugee Protection Division for re‑determination by a differently constituted panel