VB8-05849

VB8-05849

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's credibility findings were reasonable and supported by documentation and demeanour findings; the Minister's counter-arguments were speculative and did not identify serious legal, factual or mixed errors; the record established a real risk of persecution linked to an imputed anti-regime political opinion (detention, assault, coercion to relinquish research, monitoring, threats and a summons), and there was no viable state protection or internal flight alternative.

Citation
VB8-05849
Parties
Appellant: Minister (Appellant); Principal Respondent: XXXX XXXX; Associate Respondent: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXXforXXXXXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division From Refugee Protection Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision under s.111(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Nexus, Political Opinion, Plausibility Review, Standard of Review, Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Nexus Political Opinion Plausibility Review +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister (Appellant)

Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Principal Respondent

XXXX XXXX

Associate Respondent

XXXX XXXXforXXXXXXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division From Refugee Protection Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in finding a nexus to the Convention ground of political opinion
  3. 3 Applicable standard of review for findings of mixed fact and law

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's credibility findings were reasonable and supported by documentation and demeanour findings; the Minister's counter-arguments were speculative and did not identify serious legal, factual or mixed errors; the record established a real risk of persecution linked to an imputed anti-regime political opinion (detention, assault, coercion to relinquish research, monitoring, threats and a summons), and there was no viable state protection or internal flight alternative.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision under s.111(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Minister's appeal dismissed; RPD determination accepting the Respondents' refugee claims affirmed