TB4-02322

TB4-02322

The RAD held that the RPD's global adverse credibility conclusion was unreasonable because it inconsistently treated key corroborative evidence (notably an Attestation Letter), drew flawed inferences (including from the husband's prior statements), and failed to adequately justify dismissing important documents; accordingly the RAD set aside the RPD decision and referred the matter to the RPD under s.111(1)(c) IRPA for redetermination with directions to reassess credibility, blood‑feud targeting and state protection.

Citation
TB4-02322
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / RAD Decision Referring Matter to RPD for Redetermination
Outcome
RPD decision set aside; matter referred to the RPD for redetermination under section 111(1)(c) of IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Blood Feud, State Protection, Standard of Review, Remand
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Blood Feud State Protection Standard of Review Remand

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 6 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / RAD Decision Referring Matter to RPD for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable
  2. 2 Whether the appellants were targeted by a blood feud
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available to the appellants

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD held that the RPD's global adverse credibility conclusion was unreasonable because it inconsistently treated key corroborative evidence (notably an Attestation Letter), drew flawed inferences (including from the husband's prior statements), and failed to adequately justify dismissing important documents; accordingly the RAD set aside the RPD decision and referred the matter to the RPD under s.111(1)(c) IRPA for redetermination with directions to reassess credibility, blood‑feud targeting and state protection.

Court Disposition

RPD decision set aside; matter referred to the RPD for redetermination under section 111(1)(c) of IRPA

Orders

  • Refer the claim back to the RPD for redetermination under s.111(1)(c) IRPA
  • RPD must reconsider the credibility of the appellants with specific attention to whether they are targets of blood feuds and to the availability of state protection