TB5-06169

TB5-06169

The RAD concluded the RPD erred in its generalized risk analysis by failing to analyze motive and connections between multiple crimes, by improperly attributing sole motive without evidential basis, and by insufficiently addressing state protection and internal flight alternative; because the record lacks sufficient evidence for the RAD to make a final determination, the appeal is allowed and the matter is referred to the RPD for redetermination by a differently‑constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Citation
TB5-06169
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Secondary Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (son): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division; Matter Referred to Refugee Protection Division for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of RPD set aside and matter referred to Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently‑constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Generalized Risk Vs Personalized Risk, Referral for Redetermination, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Appellate Standard of Review, Credibility Findings
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Generalized Risk Vs Personalized Risk Referral for Redetermination State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Appellate Standard of Review +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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Secondary Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division; Matter Referred to Refugee Protection Division for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in treating the Appellants' risk as generalized rather than personalized
  2. 2 Whether the RPD adequately analyzed the motive and connections between crimes against the Appellants
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal flight alternative were properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD erred in its generalized risk analysis by failing to analyze motive and connections between multiple crimes, by improperly attributing sole motive without evidential basis, and by insufficiently addressing state protection and internal flight alternative; because the record lacks sufficient evidence for the RAD to make a final determination, the appeal is allowed and the matter is referred to the RPD for redetermination by a differently‑constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of RPD set aside and matter referred to Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently‑constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Orders

  • Refer matter to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently‑constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Appeal allowed