TC0-00612

TC0-00612

The RAD found the RPD erred by making speculative plausibility findings and failing to apply the SOGIE Guideline in assessing the Principal Appellant's sexual orientation and corroborative evidence; on independent review and on the balance of probabilities the Appellants are perceived as bisexual and face a serious possibility of persecution by public actors and police in Dominica, with no adequate state protection or internal flight alternative, therefore they are Convention refugees.

Citation
TC0-00612
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Final Decision by RAD Substituting RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD substitutes its own decision that the Appellants are Convention refugees
Legal Topics
Refugee Status, Sexual Orientation and SOGIE, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Particular Social Group, Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Status Sexual Orientation and SOGIE Credibility Assessment State Protection +2 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Final Decision by RAD Substituting RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment regarding the Principal Appellant's sexual orientation
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants meet the definition of Convention refugees
  3. 3 Whether the RPD applied the SOGIE Guideline correctly

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred by making speculative plausibility findings and failing to apply the SOGIE Guideline in assessing the Principal Appellant's sexual orientation and corroborative evidence; on independent review and on the balance of probabilities the Appellants are perceived as bisexual and face a serious possibility of persecution by public actors and police in Dominica, with no adequate state protection or internal flight alternative, therefore they are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD substitutes its own decision that the Appellants are Convention refugees

Orders

  • Allow the appeal
  • Substitute decision that the Appellants are Convention refugees