TB8-19584

TB8-19584

The RAD concluded the RPD erred in making adverse credibility findings because it failed to adequately consider the totality of the evidence, improperly drew negative inferences without seeking explanations, and speculated about facts; on proper assessment the Appellant's testimony and supporting documents are credible, there is nexus by imputed political opinion, state protection is inadequate, and the Appellant qualifies as a Convention refugee, so the RAD substituted its decision and allowed the appeal.

Citation
TB8-19584
Parties
Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision (reasons and Substituted Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Re‑availment, Convention Refugee Status, Imputed Political Opinion, State Protection, Corroboration and Documentary Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Re‑availment Convention Refugee Status Imputed Political Opinion 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision (reasons and Substituted Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether re‑availment undermined the claim
  3. 3 Whether absence of documentary proof justified adverse inference

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD erred in making adverse credibility findings because it failed to adequately consider the totality of the evidence, improperly drew negative inferences without seeking explanations, and speculated about facts; on proper assessment the Appellant's testimony and supporting documents are credible, there is nexus by imputed political opinion, state protection is inadequate, and the Appellant qualifies as a Convention refugee, so the RAD substituted its decision and allowed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; substituted decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Substitute decision: Appellant is a Convention refugee