TB8-23937

TB8-23937

The RAD found the RPD erred in dismissing corroborative documentary and testimonial evidence as implausible on minor grounds, failed to properly consider new evidence and the PA's ongoing political activity, and therefore on a balance of probabilities the appellants established the PA's profile as a government critic and a well‑founded fear of persecution; accordingly the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a determination that the appellants are Convention refugees under paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
TB8-23937
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse/appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Determination on Appeal With Substitution Under S.111(1)(b) IRPA
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside; RAD substitutes its own determination that the appellants are Convention refugees.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admission of New Evidence, Country Conditions, Convention Refugee Determination, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admission of New Evidence Country Conditions Convention Refugee Determination Procedural Fairness

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse/appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Determination on Appeal With Substitution Under S.111(1)(b) IRPA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings and in weighing documentary evidence
  2. 2 Whether newly submitted evidence should be admitted and alters the credibility assessment
  3. 3 Whether the appellants established a well‑founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion and activism

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred in dismissing corroborative documentary and testimonial evidence as implausible on minor grounds, failed to properly consider new evidence and the PA's ongoing political activity, and therefore on a balance of probabilities the appellants established the PA's profile as a government critic and a well‑founded fear of persecution; accordingly the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a determination that the appellants are Convention refugees under paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside; RAD substitutes its own determination that the appellants are Convention refugees.

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes a determination that the appellants are Convention refugees
  • The appeal is allowed