TB8-16754

TB8-16754

The RAD allowed the appeal under IRPA s.111(1)(c) because the RPD's identity assessment was incomplete and failed to properly explore competing evidence about nationality; given the contested and probative Somali secondary evidence alongside significant indicia of Ethiopian documentation, the matter must be remitted to the RPD for thorough re‑examination by a differently constituted panel; the medical letter confirming no FGM is admissible but visitor records are not.

Citation
TB8-16754
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division; RAD Allowed Appeal and Remitted Matter to RPD for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; RPD negative decision set aside on identity ground and matter remitted to RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel
Legal Topics
Identity Assessment, Credibility Findings, Admissibility of New Evidence, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Risk, Remittal to Tribunal, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Identity Assessment Credibility Findings Admissibility of New Evidence Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Risk Remittal to Tribunal +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division; RAD Allowed Appeal and Remitted Matter to RPD for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RPD erred in assessment of appellants' national identity and competing identity evidence
  2. 2 Whether RPD erred in credibility findings regarding alleged targeted persecution
  3. 3 Whether new evidence on appeal meets IRPA s.110(4) and should be admitted

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal under IRPA s.111(1)(c) because the RPD's identity assessment was incomplete and failed to properly explore competing evidence about nationality; given the contested and probative Somali secondary evidence alongside significant indicia of Ethiopian documentation, the matter must be remitted to the RPD for thorough re‑examination by a differently constituted panel; the medical letter confirming no FGM is admissible but visitor records are not.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; RPD negative decision set aside on identity ground and matter remitted to RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel

Orders

  • Set aside RPD decision on identity ground
  • Admit medical letter confirming Minor Appellant has not undergone FGM as new evidence