TB7-02868

TB7-02868

The RAD found that the appellants' core profile as long‑time supporters/sympathizers of the Gülen/Hizmet movement (including the principal appellant's teaching in Hizmet‑affiliated schools) was established; admissible new evidence (January 31, 2017 NDP) corroborated widespread, targeted post‑coup measures in Turkey against Gülenists — specifically teachers — and that this objective country evidence, together with the appellants' profile, establishes a well‑founded fear of persecution such that the RPD decision is set aside and the RAD substitutes a finding that the appellants are Convention refugees.

Citation
TB7-02868
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXX; Associate Appellant: XXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXXXXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division — Decision on Merits and Admissibility of New Evidence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside; RAD substitutes determination that appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, Objective Risk, New Evidence Admissibility, Convention Refugee Determination, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Objective Risk New Evidence Admissibility Convention Refugee Determination +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXX

Principal Appellant

XXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXXXXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division — Decision on Merits and Admissibility of New Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of new evidence under subsection 110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether RPD made unreasonable credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether appellants' established profile gives rise to a well‑founded fear of persecution on account of affiliation with the Gülen/Hizmet movement

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found that the appellants' core profile as long‑time supporters/sympathizers of the Gülen/Hizmet movement (including the principal appellant's teaching in Hizmet‑affiliated schools) was established; admissible new evidence (January 31, 2017 NDP) corroborated widespread, targeted post‑coup measures in Turkey against Gülenists — specifically teachers — and that this objective country evidence, together with the appellants' profile, establishes a well‑founded fear of persecution such that the RPD decision is set aside and the RAD substitutes a finding that the appellants are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside; RAD substitutes determination that appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA

Orders

  • Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD sets aside the determination of the RPD and substitutes its own determination that the appellants are Convention refugees.