TB8-32577

TB8-32577

The RAD found the RPD erred in law and fact by failing to consider the totality of objective country documentation which, combined with the appellants' credible testimony, established a real risk of persecution by militias (including forced recruitment and targeting based on imputed political opinion and religion); state protection and internal flight were unreasonable in the Yemeni context, so the appellants qualify as Convention refugees and the RPD decision was set aside under IRPA s.111(1)(b).

Citation
TB8-32577
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and substitutes its own determination that the appellants are Convention refugees.
Legal Topics
Forced Recruitment, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Determination, Imputed Political Opinion, Religion Based Persecution, Objective Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Forced Recruitment Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Determination Imputed Political Opinion Religion Based Persecution Objective Risk Assessment

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision (reasons Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is an objective basis for the appellants' fear of persecution in Yemen
  2. 2 Whether appellants face a risk of forced recruitment by state or non-state actors
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative or state protection is reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred in law and fact by failing to consider the totality of objective country documentation which, combined with the appellants' credible testimony, established a real risk of persecution by militias (including forced recruitment and targeting based on imputed political opinion and religion); state protection and internal flight were unreasonable in the Yemeni context, so the appellants qualify as Convention refugees and the RPD decision was set aside under IRPA s.111(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and substitutes its own determination that the appellants are Convention refugees.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • RPD determination dated November 8, 2018 set aside