MC0-08685

MC0-08685

The RAD found the RPD erred in its credibility analysis by overemphasizing delay and an omission about a visa attempt, failing to meaningfully consider supporting documents and the psychological report, and failing to assess the appellants' risk under section 97; the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to a differently constituted RPD panel for a more fulsome hearing and redetermination addressing specified gaps.

Citation
MC0-08685
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Adult Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Remitting Matter to RPD for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Female Genital Mutilation/cutting (fgm/c), Section 97 Risk to Life, Supporting Evidence, Remand for Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Female Genital Mutilation/cutting (fgm/c) Section 97 Risk to Life Supporting Evidence Remand for Redetermination

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

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Adult Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellants

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Remitting Matter to RPD for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility analysis
  2. 2 Whether delay and omission defeated a finding of subjective fear
  3. 3 Whether RPD adequately considered supporting documents and psychological report

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD erred in its credibility analysis by overemphasizing delay and an omission about a visa attempt, failing to meaningfully consider supporting documents and the psychological report, and failing to assess the appellants' risk under section 97; the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to a differently constituted RPD panel for a more fulsome hearing and redetermination addressing specified gaps.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel

Orders

  • RPD to conduct a more fulsome hearing and reassess credibility
  • RPD to canvass the issues identified in paragraph 22 of the reasons and any other relevant topics