VB9-09533

VB9-09533

The RAD found the RPD's negative credibility findings were not justified on the record, admitted the new medical letter under s.110(4) and Raza/Singh tests, accepted the Appellant's sworn testimony as truthful, concluded an IFA in Nairobi or Mombasa fails the first prong because the Appellant and her children face more than a minimal risk from her uncles and there is no effective state protection in Kenya, and therefore substituted the RPD decision and determined the Appellant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA.

Citation
VB9-09533
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal; Reasons and Determination Substituting RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD substitutes RPD decision and determines Appellant is a Convention refugee
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Admission of New Evidence, State Protection, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Admission of New Evidence State Protection Convention Refugee Determination

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 7 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal; Reasons and Determination Substituting RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the Appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether the new medical evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and the Raza/Singh tests and should be admitted
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative exists in Nairobi or Mombasa

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD's negative credibility findings were not justified on the record, admitted the new medical letter under s.110(4) and Raza/Singh tests, accepted the Appellant's sworn testimony as truthful, concluded an IFA in Nairobi or Mombasa fails the first prong because the Appellant and her children face more than a minimal risk from her uncles and there is no effective state protection in Kenya, and therefore substituted the RPD decision and determined the Appellant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD substitutes RPD decision and determines Appellant is a Convention refugee

Orders

  • Admit the doctor's letter dated December 5, 2019 as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  • Set aside the RPD decision and substitute a determination that the Appellant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA