TB9-17396

TB9-17396

The RAD concluded the proposed new letter was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza criteria; found no breach of procedural fairness from the child’s limited disruptions; determined the RPD erred in its credibility and documentary analysis (specifically misweighing and disbelieving the original FAP membership card and improperly dismissing testimony about the arrest/complaint), substituted its own findings that the membership card was genuine and that the Appellant was a FAP member and would face a serious possibility of persecution for his political opinion if returned to Azerbaijan, and set aside the RPD determination under s.111(1)(b) to allow the appeal and find the...

Citation
TB9-17396
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (aka XXXX XXXX); Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence, No Oral Hearing, Substitution of RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: Appellant found to be a Convention refugee
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Admissibility of New Evidence, Documentary Authentication, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness Admissibility of New Evidence Documentary Authentication State Protection +2 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (aka XXXX XXXX)

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence, No Oral Hearing, Substitution of RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new documentary evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and the Raza/Singh admissibility factors
  2. 2 Whether presence of Appellant's child and interruptions breached procedural fairness
  3. 3 Whether RPD erred in adverse credibility findings based on inconsistencies between BOC and Port of Entry notes

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the proposed new letter was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza criteria; found no breach of procedural fairness from the child’s limited disruptions; determined the RPD erred in its credibility and documentary analysis (specifically misweighing and disbelieving the original FAP membership card and improperly dismissing testimony about the arrest/complaint), substituted its own findings that the membership card was genuine and that the Appellant was a FAP member and would face a serious possibility of persecution for his political opinion if returned to Azerbaijan, and set aside the RPD determination under s.111(1)(b) to allow the appeal and find the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: Appellant found to be a Convention refugee

Orders

  • Proposed new letter (Exhibit P-2 dated 24 June 2019) rejected as inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  • No oral hearing ordered (subsection 110(6) IRPA not engaged)