TB9-08005

TB9-08005

The RAD found the RPD misapprehended key evidence and relied on unsupported implausibility and subjective fear findings to impugn credibility; after independently assessing the record and applying Guideline 4, the RAD concluded the presumption of truthfulness was not rebutted, the Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution with no operational state protection, the proposed IFAs were unreasonable in their circumstances, and therefore substituted a determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-08005
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (substitution of Determination)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Convention Refugee Status, Chairperson's Guideline 4, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Gender Based Violence Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Convention Refugee Status +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (substitution of Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in impugning the Appellants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether the RPD misapplied The Chairperson's Guideline 4
  3. 3 Whether documentary evidence was improperly assessed

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD misapprehended key evidence and relied on unsupported implausibility and subjective fear findings to impugn credibility; after independently assessing the record and applying Guideline 4, the RAD concluded the presumption of truthfulness was not rebutted, the Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution with no operational state protection, the proposed IFAs were unreasonable in their circumstances, and therefore substituted a determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Orders

  • Set aside the Refugee Protection Division determination dated March 6, 2019
  • Substitute RAD determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to subsection 111(1)(b) IRPA