MC0-08769

MC0-08769

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD wrongly penalized the appellants for relatively minor omissions without giving the benefit of the doubt, failed to assess prospective risk in light of the principal appellant's established profile as a committed social/community worker (making her vulnerable to imputed political opinion by the ELN), and there is clear and convincing evidence that Colombian authorities cannot protect them; therefore the family faces persecution throughout Colombia and the IFA need not be considered, so the appellants are Convention refugees.

Citation
MC0-08769
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (associate): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Decision (rad)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD determination substituted; appellants found to be Convention refugees
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Admission of New Evidence, Imputed Political Opinion, State Protection Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Admission of New Evidence Imputed Political Opinion State Protection Assessment

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (associate)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Decision (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of appellant's testimony and omissions in Basis of Claim Form
  2. 2 Admission and timeliness of new evidence
  3. 3 Internal flight alternative (IFA) assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD wrongly penalized the appellants for relatively minor omissions without giving the benefit of the doubt, failed to assess prospective risk in light of the principal appellant's established profile as a committed social/community worker (making her vulnerable to imputed political opinion by the ELN), and there is clear and convincing evidence that Colombian authorities cannot protect them; therefore the family faces persecution throughout Colombia and the IFA need not be considered, so the appellants are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD determination substituted; appellants found to be Convention refugees

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and RPD decision substituted: appellants are Convention refugees.
  • Request for an oral hearing denied.