MB9-21001

MB9-21001

The RAD allowed the appeals for the Haitian mother and her Haitian‑national son because the RPD erred in its credibility assessment by relying on speculative questioning, overemphasizing a non-determinative change about a visa rejection, improperly applying the implausibility standard, and failing to analyze and give probative weight to corroborating documents; on the record and balance of probabilities they face a risk in Haiti and there is no reasonable state protection or internal flight alternative. The US‑citizen son's appeal was dismissed because he failed to establish a risk in his country of nationality.

Citation
MB9-21001
Parties
Appellant (mother): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (son Haiti): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (son United States): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons for Decision (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: appeals of the Haitian‑national mother and her Haitian‑national son allowed; appeal of the US‑citizen son dismissed.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Corroboration and Documentary Evidence, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Corroboration and Documentary Evidence State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (mother)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (son Haiti)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (son United States)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons for Decision (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the new documents submitted on appeal were admissible under subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  2. 2 Whether the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) erred in its credibility findings regarding the female appellant
  3. 3 Whether the RPD properly assessed implausibility and contradictions and gave proper weight to corroborating documents

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeals for the Haitian mother and her Haitian‑national son because the RPD erred in its credibility assessment by relying on speculative questioning, overemphasizing a non-determinative change about a visa rejection, improperly applying the implausibility standard, and failing to analyze and give probative weight to corroborating documents; on the record and balance of probabilities they face a risk in Haiti and there is no reasonable state protection or internal flight alternative. The US‑citizen son's appeal was dismissed because he failed to establish a risk in his country of nationality.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: appeals of the Haitian‑national mother and her Haitian‑national son allowed; appeal of the US‑citizen son dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal of XXXX XXXX XXXX (mother) allowed; RPD decision set aside in relation to her claim and she is found to be a person in need of protection.
  • Appeal of XXXX XXXX XXXX (son, Haitian national) allowed; RPD decision set aside in relation to his claim and he is found to be a person in need of protection.