TB8-24709

TB8-24709

RAD concluded RPD erred in its forward‑facing risk assessment: Applicant's credible, long‑standing pattern of severe domestic violence, threats and manipulation by her ex‑partner, combined with objective country information showing ineffective state protection and the presence of motivating factors (custody dispute and property) and means (contacts/family in Uganda), establish more than a minimal risk of persecution on return; IFA (Mbarara) is not safe given custody of a minor and the ex‑partner's ability to locate and pursue her; therefore Applicant is a Convention refugee and RAD substitutes the RPD decision under IRPA s.111(1)(b).

Citation
TB8-24709
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX); Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Substituting RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD substitutes RPD decision and determines Applicant is a Convention refugee
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Article 1 F Exclusion, Particular Social Group, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility and New Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Human Rights Gender Based Violence Convention Refugee Determination Article 1 F Exclusion Particular Social Group State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Substituting RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Appellant faces a forward‑facing risk of persecution if returned to Uganda
  2. 2 Whether Appellant is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1F(b)
  3. 3 Whether Appellant is a member of a particular social group (women subject to domestic violence)

Ratio Decidendi

RAD concluded RPD erred in its forward‑facing risk assessment: Applicant's credible, long‑standing pattern of severe domestic violence, threats and manipulation by her ex‑partner, combined with objective country information showing ineffective state protection and the presence of motivating factors (custody dispute and property) and means (contacts/family in Uganda), establish more than a minimal risk of persecution on return; IFA (Mbarara) is not safe given custody of a minor and the ex‑partner's ability to locate and pursue her; therefore Applicant is a Convention refugee and RAD substitutes the RPD decision under IRPA s.111(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD substitutes RPD decision and determines Applicant is a Convention refugee

Orders

  • Pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b) the decision of the RPD dated August 27, 2018 is replaced and the Appellant is determined to be a Convention refugee.
  • Affidavits submitted on appeal were not admitted as new evidence and no oral hearing is ordered.