TC0-00939

TC0-00939

The RAD concluded the RPD erred in rejecting the Principal Appellant's credibility and in failing to assess documentary and psychological evidence and gender-related risk; the RAD admitted ten items of new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA, found on the balance of probabilities that the Appellants face persecution on return and lack state protection, and pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA set aside the RPD decision and substituted its own finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Citation
TC0-00939
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside; RAD substitutes its determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees.
Legal Topics
Gender Based Violence, Domestic Violence, Credibility Assessment, New Evidence, State Protection, Adultery Prosecution, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Gender Based Violence Domestic Violence Credibility Assessment New Evidence 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the RPD erred in assessing the Principal Appellant's credibility
  2. 2 whether RPD failed to assess documentary evidence
  3. 3 whether RPD failed to apply Gender Guidelines and assess victim profile

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD erred in rejecting the Principal Appellant's credibility and in failing to assess documentary and psychological evidence and gender-related risk; the RAD admitted ten items of new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA, found on the balance of probabilities that the Appellants face persecution on return and lack state protection, and pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA set aside the RPD decision and substituted its own finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside; RAD substitutes its determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees.

Orders

  • Set aside the Refugee Protection Division decision dated December 16, 2019
  • Substitute RAD determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA