TB4-09841

TB4-09841

The RPD's credibility conclusions were unsound because they relied on unsupported implausibility inferences (e.g., criticizing the number of police approaches) and failed to address or explain why submitted corroborative evidence (emails, UNMIK letter, neighbour and colleague letters) was disregarded; the RPD also failed to meaningfully analyze state protection and relied on post‑claim country‑condition material; because these errors made the RPD's determination "wrong" under s.111(2) and unresolved credibility issues remained (including concerns about the UNMIK letter and missing US asylum documentation), the RAD set aside the RPD decision and referred the matter to the RPD for...

Citation
TB4-09841
Parties
Principal Appellant: Principal Appellant; Associated Appellant: Associated Appellant; Minor Appellant: Minor Appellant 1; Minor Appellant: Minor Appellant 2
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal — RAD Refers Matter to RPD for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD set aside the RPD determination and referred the matter to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently‑constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, State Protection, Standard of Review and Deference, Admission of Corroborative Evidence, Remittal for Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings State Protection Standard of Review and Deference Admission of Corroborative Evidence Remittal for Redetermination

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant

Principal Appellant

Associated Appellant

Associated Appellant

Minor Appellant 1

Minor Appellant

Minor Appellant 2

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal — RAD Refers Matter to RPD for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to properly analyze and apply the presumption of adequate state protection
  3. 3 Whether the RPD improperly required or disregarded corroborative evidence (emails, UN police letter, neighbour and colleague letters)

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's credibility conclusions were unsound because they relied on unsupported implausibility inferences (e.g., criticizing the number of police approaches) and failed to address or explain why submitted corroborative evidence (emails, UNMIK letter, neighbour and colleague letters) was disregarded; the RPD also failed to meaningfully analyze state protection and relied on post‑claim country‑condition material; because these errors made the RPD's determination "wrong" under s.111(2) and unresolved credibility issues remained (including concerns about the UNMIK letter and missing US asylum documentation), the RAD set aside the RPD decision and referred the matter to the RPD for...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD set aside the RPD determination and referred the matter to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently‑constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act the matter is referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re‑determination by a differently‑constituted panel.