TB8-31322

TB8-31322

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD erred in law by dismissing the appellant's allegations of attacks and threats solely for want of documentary corroboration without adequately testing credibility; the purported medical documents dated before the RPD decision do not meet s.110(4) IRPA and are not admitted; matter is referred to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel under para.111(1)(c).

Citation
TB8-31322
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal; Matter Referred to RPD for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed and referred to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Referral for Redetermination, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Referral for Redetermination Procedural Fairness

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal; Matter Referred to RPD for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred by rejecting the appellant's claim solely for lack of documentary corroboration
  2. 2 Whether documents at pages 15-18 should be admitted under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD erred in law by dismissing the appellant's allegations of attacks and threats solely for want of documentary corroboration without adequately testing credibility; the purported medical documents dated before the RPD decision do not meet s.110(4) IRPA and are not admitted; matter is referred to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel under para.111(1)(c).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed and referred to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(c) of the IRPA, refer the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.