MB9-01291

MB9-01291

The RAD found the RPD's adverse credibility findings were tainted by misinterpretation and apparent bias, and that key negative inferences were not justified on the evidence; because the internal flight alternative was not addressed the RAD could not properly substitute a decision and therefore set aside the RPD decision and remitted the claims to a differently constituted RPD panel for redetermination including consideration of IFA.

Citation
MB9-01291
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX (principal appellant); Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX (spouse/appellant); Subject of Appeal (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX (minor)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Reasons for Decision; Appeal Allowed and Matter Remitted to RPD for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and matter referred to a differently constituted panel of the RPD for redetermination including consideration of internal flight alternative pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(c).
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Refugee Protection, Remittal to Tribunal
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Refugee Protection 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX (principal appellant)

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX (spouse/appellant)

Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX (minor)

Subject of Appeal (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Reasons for Decision; Appeal Allowed and Matter Remitted to RPD for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified
  2. 2 Whether the RPD misinterpreted evidence and showed bias
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative was considered or must be considered on redetermination

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD's adverse credibility findings were tainted by misinterpretation and apparent bias, and that key negative inferences were not justified on the evidence; because the internal flight alternative was not addressed the RAD could not properly substitute a decision and therefore set aside the RPD decision and remitted the claims to a differently constituted RPD panel for redetermination including consideration of IFA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and matter referred to a differently constituted panel of the RPD for redetermination including consideration of internal flight alternative pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(c).

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(c) the matter is referred to a differently constituted panel of the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination including explicit consideration of an internal flight alternative