MB9-03279

MB9-03279

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD's adverse credibility finding was unreasonable: the RPD failed to properly consider a credible medical report explaining memory and concentration problems and failed to give appropriate weight to corroborative personal and objective documentary evidence; the new affidavit evidence was admissible and credible; on a balance of probabilities the appellants face a real risk of harm from the Badoo Boys and state protection/internal flight alternative are inadequate under s.97 IRPA, warranting substitution of a decision that they are persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-03279
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (protection Claim) / Decision on Appeal at Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Substituted Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the Appellants are persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, New and Late Evidence, Risk Assessment Under Section 97 IRPA, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment New and Late Evidence Risk Assessment Under Section 97 IRPA State Protection +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (protection Claim) / Decision on Appeal at Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Substituted Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence should be admitted
  2. 2 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in its adverse credibility finding
  3. 3 Whether appellants face a prospective risk of persecution or harm from the Badoo Boys

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD's adverse credibility finding was unreasonable: the RPD failed to properly consider a credible medical report explaining memory and concentration problems and failed to give appropriate weight to corroborative personal and objective documentary evidence; the new affidavit evidence was admissible and credible; on a balance of probabilities the appellants face a real risk of harm from the Badoo Boys and state protection/internal flight alternative are inadequate under s.97 IRPA, warranting substitution of a decision that they are persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the Appellants are persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • New evidence (affidavit and supporting documents) accepted into the record