TB9-29131

TB9-29131

The RAD allowed the appeal, finding the RPD erred by dismissing the claim: the RAD accepted post‑decision country condition articles as new evidence, rejected the post‑hearing affidavit, corrected a misquotation of testimony, concluded the Appellants have a residual persecutory profile as stateless Palestinians such that they would face a serious possibility of persecution in Lebanon, found state protection and internal flight alternative unavailable, and substituted the RPD decision to find the Appellants are Convention Refugees under s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-29131
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Second Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Appeal Decision (rad Substituted Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and substitutes finding that Appellants are Convention Refugees
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Statelessness, Credibility Assessment, New Evidence Admissibility, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Statelessness Credibility Assessment New Evidence Admissibility State Protection +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Second Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Appeal Decision (rad Substituted Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether post‑rejection evidence met s.110(4) IRPA criteria and should be admitted
  2. 2 Whether an oral hearing was required under s.110(6) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal, finding the RPD erred by dismissing the claim: the RAD accepted post‑decision country condition articles as new evidence, rejected the post‑hearing affidavit, corrected a misquotation of testimony, concluded the Appellants have a residual persecutory profile as stateless Palestinians such that they would face a serious possibility of persecution in Lebanon, found state protection and internal flight alternative unavailable, and substituted the RPD decision to find the Appellants are Convention Refugees under s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and substitutes finding that Appellants are Convention Refugees

Orders

  • Appeal allowed pursuant to section 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • RPD decision dated October 3, 2019 set aside and replaced with RAD finding that Appellants are Convention Refugees