TB5-11862

TB5-11862

The RPD erred by making implausibility-based credibility findings without objective evidentiary support and by applying expectations about Peruvian police procedures without evidence; those errors fatally undermined the RPD's credibility determination and required the RAD to set aside the decision and refer the matter to the RPD for redetermination under s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Citation
TB5-11862
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Referred Under S.111(1)(c) to Refugee Protection Division for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeals allowed; matter referred to Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel under s.111(1)(c) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Standard of Review on Appeal, Article 1 E Exclusion, Implausibility Findings, Referral for Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Standard of Review on Appeal Article 1 E Exclusion Implausibility Findings Referral 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Referred Under S.111(1)(c) to Refugee Protection Division for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in making implausibility and credibility findings without evidentiary basis
  2. 2 Whether Article 1E exclusion was correctly considered given Peru as country of reference
  3. 3 What standard of review the RAD must apply on appeals with no new evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred by making implausibility-based credibility findings without objective evidentiary support and by applying expectations about Peruvian police procedures without evidence; those errors fatally undermined the RPD's credibility determination and required the RAD to set aside the decision and refer the matter to the RPD for redetermination under s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; matter referred to Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel under s.111(1)(c) IRPA

Orders

  • Pursuant to Section 111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, refer the matter to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel