MC0-08979

MC0-08979

The RAD found the RPD's adverse credibility findings against the male appellant were legally erroneous because they relied improperly on absence of corporate corroboration and gave determinative weight to a 12-day delay; the RPD also failed to consider Exhibit D-1 (four police/peace court documents) that were directly probative. Consequently the RAD set aside the RPD's determination for the two adult appellants and referred those matters to the RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel. The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision dismissing the minor appellant's claim for protection in the United States.

Citation
MC0-08979
Parties
Appellant Male: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Female: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Reasons and Decision on Appeals; Referral to RPD for Re Determination for Two Appellants
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: appeals of the two adult appellants allowed, RPD determination set aside and matter referred to RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel; minor appellant's appeal dismissed and RPD determination confirmed.
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Corroboration, Referral for Re Determination, Standard of Review, Asylum Shopping/delay, IRPA S96 and S97 Interpretation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Corroboration Referral for Re Determination Standard of Review Asylum Shopping/delay +1 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Male

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Female

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Reasons and Decision on Appeals; Referral to RPD for Re Determination for Two Appellants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in adverse credibility findings against the male appellant
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to consider Exhibit D-1 (four complaints) and the probative value of those documents
  3. 3 Whether the 12-day delay amounted to asylum shopping sufficient to reject the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD's adverse credibility findings against the male appellant were legally erroneous because they relied improperly on absence of corporate corroboration and gave determinative weight to a 12-day delay; the RPD also failed to consider Exhibit D-1 (four police/peace court documents) that were directly probative. Consequently the RAD set aside the RPD's determination for the two adult appellants and referred those matters to the RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel. The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision dismissing the minor appellant's claim for protection in the United States.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: appeals of the two adult appellants allowed, RPD determination set aside and matter referred to RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel; minor appellant's appeal dismissed and RPD determination confirmed.

Orders

  • Appeals of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are allowed; RPD determination set aside and matter referred to the RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel
  • Appeal of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (minor) is dismissed and the RPD's determination that he is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection pursuant to subsection 97(1) IRPA is confirmed