TB9-29093

TB9-29093

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD made material errors in assessing credibility by rejecting a reasonable explanation for omissions on Schedule A, failing to apply the Gender Guideline when evaluating the Principal Appellant's continued employment while hiding, and ignoring relevant country information about Yoruba customs; these errors undermined the RPD's adverse credibility findings and, on proper assessment, the Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution and no viable state protection or IFA, so the RAD set aside the RPD decision and found the Appellants to be Convention refugees pursuant to section 111(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-29093
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (final)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Gender Based Persecution Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Convention Refugee Determination

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the Principal Appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether omission of temporary addresses on Schedule A justified adverse credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to apply the Chairperson's Gender Guideline in assessing credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD made material errors in assessing credibility by rejecting a reasonable explanation for omissions on Schedule A, failing to apply the Gender Guideline when evaluating the Principal Appellant's continued employment while hiding, and ignoring relevant country information about Yoruba customs; these errors undermined the RPD's adverse credibility findings and, on proper assessment, the Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution and no viable state protection or IFA, so the RAD set aside the RPD decision and found the Appellants to be Convention refugees pursuant to section 111(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Set aside the Refugee Protection Division determination
  • Substitute a new determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 111(1)(b) IRPA