TC0-02362

TC0-02362

Interpreter mistranslation led to an incorrect adverse credibility inference by the RPD; the RAD admitted certified translation and affidavit as new credible evidence, found the Appellant credible, concluded he established a serious possibility of persecution by Taliban and others, that state protection was inadequate and IFA not viable, and substituted its own decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
TC0-02362
Parties
Appellant (person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal): XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division (substitution Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; substituted decision that Appellant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Interpretation/mistranslation of Testimony, Admission of New Evidence, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Corroborative Evidence Assessment, Substitution of Decision Under S.111(1)(b) IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law International Protection Law Credibility Assessment Interpretation/mistranslation of Testimony Admission of New Evidence State Protection Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) +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 7 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division (substitution Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in making adverse credibility findings based on a mistranslation of oral testimony
  2. 2 Whether new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and Singh tests (credibility, relevance, newness) and should be admitted
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant rebutted the presumption of adequate state protection

Ratio Decidendi

Interpreter mistranslation led to an incorrect adverse credibility inference by the RPD; the RAD admitted certified translation and affidavit as new credible evidence, found the Appellant credible, concluded he established a serious possibility of persecution by Taliban and others, that state protection was inadequate and IFA not viable, and substituted its own decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; substituted decision that Appellant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal allowed pursuant to s.111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; Appellant found to be a Convention refugee
  • Admitted new evidence: affidavit dated March 4, 2020 and certified translation of RPD hearing transcript