TB8-33713

TB8-33713

The RPD's negative credibility findings and conclusion that the appellant was not a genuine practitioner and not wanted by Chinese authorities were unsupported because the RPD failed to cite or explain documentary sources, did not allow the appellant adequate opportunity to explain, and conflated practice in Canada with practice in China; accordingly the RAD allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to a differently constituted RPD panel for redetermination under IRPA ss.111(1)(c) and 111(2).

Citation
TB8-33713
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal: RAD Allowed Appeal and Remitted Matter to RPD for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Religious Persecution, Remand for Redetermination, Sur Place Analysis, Country Conditions Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Credibility Assessment Religious Persecution Remand for Redetermination Sur Place Analysis Country Conditions Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal: RAD Allowed Appeal and Remitted Matter to RPD for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings regarding the appellant's religious practice and knowledge
  2. 2 Whether the RPD adequately considered documentary evidence and provided sufficient reasons
  3. 3 Whether the appellant could practice his religion in China and whether he is wanted by the authorities

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's negative credibility findings and conclusion that the appellant was not a genuine practitioner and not wanted by Chinese authorities were unsupported because the RPD failed to cite or explain documentary sources, did not allow the appellant adequate opportunity to explain, and conflated practice in Canada with practice in China; accordingly the RAD allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to a differently constituted RPD panel for redetermination under IRPA ss.111(1)(c) and 111(2).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Matter remitted to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to IRPA ss.111(1)(c) and 111(2)