TB8-10867

TB8-10867

The RAD found the RPD committed reversible errors by overemphasizing peripheral inconsistencies, failing to apply Gender Guidelines, speculating about documentary fraud beyond its expertise, and ignoring credible explanations and new corroborative employment evidence; on independent assessment the claimant was credible, lacks operational state protection and a viable internal flight alternative, and the RAD substituted its own determination that the claimant is a Convention refugee under IRPA s111(1)(b).

Citation
TB8-10867
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (substitution of RPD Determination)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: Appellant determined to be a Convention refugee
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Application of Gender Guidelines, Document Authenticity
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Gender Based Violence Credibility Assessment State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Application of Gender Guidelines +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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (substitution of RPD Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RPD erred in adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether Gender Guidelines were applied and hearing was trauma‑sensitive
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of new documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD committed reversible errors by overemphasizing peripheral inconsistencies, failing to apply Gender Guidelines, speculating about documentary fraud beyond its expertise, and ignoring credible explanations and new corroborative employment evidence; on independent assessment the claimant was credible, lacks operational state protection and a viable internal flight alternative, and the RAD substituted its own determination that the claimant is a Convention refugee under IRPA s111(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: Appellant determined to be a Convention refugee

Orders

  • Set aside the Refugee Protection Division determination and substitute a determination that the Appellant is a Convention refugee pursuant to IRPA s111(1)(b)
  • Admit employer confirmation letter (Let's Help Children) as new evidence; affidavit dated May 18, 2018 dismissed as not new