MB9-05215

MB9-05215

The RAD found the RPD erred in its credibility and risk analysis with respect to Venezuela and minors; because the determinative issue—the internal flight alternative in Venezuela—was not raised before the RPD the RAD could not resolve it on appeal; therefore the RAD allowed the appeal and referred the matters to the RPD for a new hearing and re‑determination by another member under paragraph 111(1)(c) IRPA.

Citation
MB9-05215
Parties
Principal Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX; Principal Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Review of RPD Decision) / Appeal Allowed and Referred to RPD for Re‑determination by Another Member
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matters referred to the Refugee Protection Division for a new hearing and re‑determination by another member.
Legal Topics
Exclusion Under Article 1 E, Credibility Assessment, Prospective Risk Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Referral for Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Exclusion Under Article 1 E Credibility Assessment Prospective Risk Assessment Internal Flight Alternative 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant (female)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant (male)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister of Immigration

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Review of RPD Decision) / Appeal Allowed and Referred to RPD for Re‑determination by Another Member

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are excluded from protection under Article 1E of the Refugee Convention due to permanent residence in Venezuela
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings regarding alleged persecution and the July 4, 2016 assault
  3. 3 Whether appellants face a prospective risk in Venezuela

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred in its credibility and risk analysis with respect to Venezuela and minors; because the determinative issue—the internal flight alternative in Venezuela—was not raised before the RPD the RAD could not resolve it on appeal; therefore the RAD allowed the appeal and referred the matters to the RPD for a new hearing and re‑determination by another member under paragraph 111(1)(c) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matters referred to the Refugee Protection Division for a new hearing and re‑determination by another member.

Orders

  • Allow the appeal and refer the matters to the Refugee Protection Division for a new hearing and re‑determination by another member under paragraph 111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (decision dated November 7, 2019).