TB9-21386

TB9-21386

The RAD concluded the RPD erred in its assessment of key documentary and objective evidence (including an improper adverse inference from the general availability of fraudulent documents and a misreading of facial recognition evidence) and that unresolved concerns about the authenticity and probative value of the letters of support required referral back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel under s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-21386
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX (aka XXXX XXXX); Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / RAD Decision: Appeal Heard on the Papers; Appeal Allowed and Matter Referred Back to RPD for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter referred back to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Document Authenticity, Religious Persecution, Sur Place Claim, Referral for Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Document Authenticity Religious Persecution Sur Place Claim +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX (aka XXXX XXXX)

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / RAD Decision: Appeal Heard on the Papers; Appeal Allowed and Matter Referred Back to RPD for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing credibility and documentary evidence such that its decision should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the photocopied summons could be fairly impugned as fraudulent on the basis of general availability of false documents in China
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant sincerely practices the Church of the Almighty God and faces a real risk of persecution if returned

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD erred in its assessment of key documentary and objective evidence (including an improper adverse inference from the general availability of fraudulent documents and a misreading of facial recognition evidence) and that unresolved concerns about the authenticity and probative value of the letters of support required referral back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel under s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter referred back to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Matter referred back to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to section 111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act