MB9-06784

MB9-06784

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD failed to apply Guidelines 4 and 8 meaningfully, cut off and did not properly hear testimony central to credibility, wrongly dismissed corroborating police and medical documents without adequate basis, and misapplied credibility standards; on re‑weighing the evidence with proper application of the Guidelines, the appellants are credible and are Convention refugees.

Citation
MB9-06784
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Female Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Male Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted.
Legal Topics
Gender Based Persecution, Sexual Violence, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Chairperson's Guidelines 4 and 8, Natural Justice
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Gender Based Persecution Sexual Violence Credibility Assessment State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Female Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Male Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD properly applied Chairperson's Guidelines 4 and 8 relating to vulnerable female claimants and victims of sexual violence
  2. 2 Whether the RPD denied the appellant procedural fairness by truncating testimony central to credibility
  3. 3 Whether the RPD properly assessed credibility in light of trauma and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD failed to apply Guidelines 4 and 8 meaningfully, cut off and did not properly hear testimony central to credibility, wrongly dismissed corroborating police and medical documents without adequate basis, and misapplied credibility standards; on re‑weighing the evidence with proper application of the Guidelines, the appellants are credible and are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted.

Orders

  • Set aside the RPD determination and substitute a finding that the appellants are Convention refugees.