TB6-07354

TB6-07354

The RAD found that significant RPD credibility findings were unsustainable and that the RPD erred in its credibility assessment; because outstanding credibility issues remain that require hearing the oral evidence previously presented to the RPD, the RAD could not substitute its own determination and therefore allowed the appeal and referred the matter back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Citation
TB6-07354
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Referral to RPD for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; RPD decision set aside to the extent necessary and matter referred to RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)), Request for Oral Hearing (s.110(6)), Standard of Review and Deference, Referral for Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)) Request for Oral Hearing (s.110(6)) Standard of Review and Deference +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Referral to RPD for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the principal and associated appellants
  2. 2 Whether proposed documents meet admissibility under s.110(4) IRPA and modified Raza factors
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA is warranted

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found that significant RPD credibility findings were unsustainable and that the RPD erred in its credibility assessment; because outstanding credibility issues remain that require hearing the oral evidence previously presented to the RPD, the RAD could not substitute its own determination and therefore allowed the appeal and referred the matter back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; RPD decision set aside to the extent necessary and matter referred to RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA

Orders

  • Refer matter to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel
  • Admit Black CAP letter dated after the RPD decision as new evidence