MC0-09506

MC0-09506

The RAD found the RPD erred in its credibility assessment by misapplying and selectively relying on objective documentary evidence; the appellants' account is supported on its central points and negative credibility findings were peripheral, but state protection remained unresolved by objective evidence, therefore the RAD allowed the appeal in part and remitted the principal and associate appellants' claims to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel while confirming the RPD's decision for the minor.

Citation
MC0-09506
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division; Appeal Allowed in Part and Remitted to RPD for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part as to Principal and Associate Appellants and remitted to the RPD for redetermination; appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed as to Minor Appellant.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing Request, Remittal to Tribunal
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment State Protection Admissibility of New Evidence Oral Hearing Request 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division; Appeal Allowed in Part and Remitted to RPD for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD conducted microscopic analysis of objective documentary evidence
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to address relevant evidence submitted by the appellants
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to give the Principal Appellant an opportunity to respond to concerns

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred in its credibility assessment by misapplying and selectively relying on objective documentary evidence; the appellants' account is supported on its central points and negative credibility findings were peripheral, but state protection remained unresolved by objective evidence, therefore the RAD allowed the appeal in part and remitted the principal and associate appellants' claims to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel while confirming the RPD's decision for the minor.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part as to Principal and Associate Appellants and remitted to the RPD for redetermination; appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed as to Minor Appellant.

Orders

  • Decline to admit appellants' proffered new evidence (report, police report, affidavit, photos) for failure to meet s.110(4) requirements
  • Deny appellants' request for an oral hearing under s.110(6) because no new evidence was admitted