TB8-24223

TB8-24223

The RPD's negative credibility findings and its requirement for corroboration were unreasonable in these circumstances, and the RPD failed to cumulatively assess the credible evidence of persistent, multi‑generational discrimination (segregated education, health care denial, targeted violence including a Molotov...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB8-24223
Parties
Appellant(s): XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal (rad Reasons and Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD determination and substitutes its own finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Credibility Findings, Persecution Vs Discrimination, Segregated Education, Natural Justice, Corroboration
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Status Credibility Findings Persecution Vs Discrimination Segregated Education Natural Justice +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Appellant(s)

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal (rad Reasons and Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RPD erred in credibility findings regarding PoE notes and alleged 2010 attack
  2. 2 Whether RPD improperly required corroboration for incidents reasonably unverifiable
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to cumulatively assess discrimination to determine persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's negative credibility findings and its requirement for corroboration were unreasonable in these circumstances, and the RPD failed to cumulatively assess the credible evidence of persistent, multi‑generational discrimination (segregated education, health care denial, targeted violence including a Molotov cocktail attack and skinhead activity); on substitution, the RAD finds the Appellants have a well‑founded fear of persecution and are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD determination and substitutes its own finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees.