TB6-18052

TB6-18052

The RAD concluded the RPD erred by relying on outdated and non‑record Peruvian residency evidence and by failing to consider the revised NDP material showing residency can be lost after 183 days outside Peru; because that error was central to the exclusion finding under Article 1E the RPD decision could not stand and the appeal is allowed with referral to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Citation
TB6-18052
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Secondary Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / RAD Appellate Decision Referring Matter to RPD for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re‑determination by a differently‑constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review, Remittal to RPD
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Article 1 E Exclusion State Protection Credibility Assessment Standard of Review Remittal to RPD

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Secondary Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellants

Minister

Respondent

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / RAD Appellate Decision Referring Matter to RPD for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellants had residency/status in Peru for the purposes of Article 1E
  2. 2 Whether the RPD misapprehended and relied on outdated or non‑record evidence regarding Peruvian immigration law
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection in Peru was found to exist

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD erred by relying on outdated and non‑record Peruvian residency evidence and by failing to consider the revised NDP material showing residency can be lost after 183 days outside Peru; because that error was central to the exclusion finding under Article 1E the RPD decision could not stand and the appeal is allowed with referral to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re‑determination by a differently‑constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Orders

  • Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(c) IRPA the RAD refers the matter to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently‑constituted panel.