TB9-29852

TB9-29852

The RAD found the RPD erred by overemphasizing peripheral inconsistencies in prior visa applications and failing to assess the core corroborating evidence; the Appellants' testimony and supporting police reports and affidavit were credible, the state could not provide effective protection, and no viable internal flight alternative existed given the TTP's reach; therefore the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-29852
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Adult Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Review of RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Standard of Review

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Adult Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Review of RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment by focusing on peripheral visa application inconsistencies
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants established a well‑founded fear of persecution by the TTP
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection was available in Pakistan

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred by overemphasizing peripheral inconsistencies in prior visa applications and failing to assess the core corroborating evidence; the Appellants' testimony and supporting police reports and affidavit were credible, the state could not provide effective protection, and no viable internal flight alternative existed given the TTP's reach; therefore the RAD set aside the RPD decision and substituted a determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees

Orders

  • Set aside the Refugee Protection Division decision dated October 9, 2019 and substitute a determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act