TB7-16795

TB7-16795

The RAD admitted the newly submitted corroborative identity evidence under s.110(4) and Raza because the appellant reasonably could not have presented it earlier, but because the new evidence was not determinative and the RPD had not made findings on the merits, the appropriate remedy under s.111(1)(c) was to set...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB7-16795
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal; Referral for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; RPD decision set aside and matter referred back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel
Legal Topics
Credibility/identity Findings, Admission of New Evidence, Referral for Redetermination, Oral Hearing Request, Gender Guidelines
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility/identity Findings Admission of New Evidence Referral for Redetermination Oral Hearing Request Gender Guidelines

Source-derived case record

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal; Referral for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellant did not credibly establish identity
  2. 2 Whether the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines were considered by the RPD
  3. 3 Whether the new evidence met the statutory and jurisprudential tests for admission (s.110(4) and Raza)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD admitted the newly submitted corroborative identity evidence under s.110(4) and Raza because the appellant reasonably could not have presented it earlier, but because the new evidence was not determinative and the RPD had not made findings on the merits, the appropriate remedy under s.111(1)(c) was to set aside the RPD determination and refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination before a differently constituted panel.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; RPD decision set aside and matter referred back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel

Orders

  • Admit the appellant's newly submitted documents as new evidence before the RAD
  • Dismiss the appellant's request for an oral hearing before the RAD