TB4-04896

TB4-04896

The RAD found legal error in the RPD's treatment of the claim: the RPD failed to properly apply the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines, improperly relied on the appellant's profession to draw negative credibility inferences regarding seeking state protection, and failed to conduct an adequate section 97 analysis and to assess an Internal Flight Alternative; accordingly the RAD allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the RPD for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel with directions to examine IFA viability.

Citation
TB4-04896
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor Dependent): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Remitted to Refugee Protection Division for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter referred back to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation, Domestic Violence, State Protection (section 97 Irpa), Credibility Findings, Internal Flight Alternative, Chairperson's Gender Guidelines
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Gender Based Violence Female Genital Mutilation Domestic Violence State Protection (section 97 Irpa) Credibility Findings +2 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor Dependent)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Remitted to Refugee Protection Division for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the RPD err in its credibility findings?
  2. 2 Did the RPD properly apply the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines?
  3. 3 Did the RPD fail to assess state protection under section 97 IRPA?

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found legal error in the RPD's treatment of the claim: the RPD failed to properly apply the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines, improperly relied on the appellant's profession to draw negative credibility inferences regarding seeking state protection, and failed to conduct an adequate section 97 analysis and to assess an Internal Flight Alternative; accordingly the RAD allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the RPD for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel with directions to examine IFA viability.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter referred back to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel

Orders

  • Appeal allowed pursuant to sections 111(1)(c) and 111(2) of the IRPA and matter referred to the RPD for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel
  • Directed that the re-constituted RPD panel examine the viability of an Internal Flight Alternative to a location where the appellant and her daughter would not face serious harm due to domestic abuse or forced genital mutilation