TB9-33954

TB9-33954

The RAD found the RPD erred in adverse credibility and subjective fear findings, admitted timely country‑condition documents under s.110(4), held the claimant faces more than a minimal risk of persecution on return assessed under s.96 IRPA, found state protection and IFA unavailable, and substituted the RPD decision to declare the Appellant a Convention refugee.

Citation
TB9-33954
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal From RPD Decision / Refugee Appeal Division Decision Substituting RPD Findings
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD substitutes RPD decision and finds Appellant is a Convention refugee
Legal Topics
Credibility, Convention Refugee Status, New Evidence (s110 Irpa), State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Standard of Review, Section 96 and 97 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Convention Refugee Status New Evidence (s110 Irpa) State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal From RPD Decision / Refugee Appeal Division Decision Substituting RPD Findings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its adverse credibility and subjective fear findings
  2. 2 Whether the risk to the Appellant should be assessed under s.96 rather than as a generalized risk under s.97
  3. 3 Whether proposed new evidence meets the s.110(4) test and the modified Raza/Singh criteria

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred in adverse credibility and subjective fear findings, admitted timely country‑condition documents under s.110(4), held the claimant faces more than a minimal risk of persecution on return assessed under s.96 IRPA, found state protection and IFA unavailable, and substituted the RPD decision to declare the Appellant a Convention refugee.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD substitutes RPD decision and finds Appellant is a Convention refugee

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Substitute decision pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA: Appellant is a Convention refugee