MB4-00477

The RPD's adverse credibility finding was unreasonable because it relied on overly vigilant, microscopic scrutiny and factual errors (including misstating arrival date and overemphasizing absence of employment documentation) and failed adequately to consider the totality and context of the evidence; therefore the RPD determination must be set aside and the matter referred to a differently constituted panel for re-determination.

Citation: MB4-00477
Parties: Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Immigration)
Court: Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 14 April 2014
Procedural Posture: Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Under Irpa) / Appeal Heard by Rad; Decision Allowing Appeal and Referring Matter for Re Determination
Legal Topics: Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)), Hearing on Appeal (s.110(6)), Standard of Review (reasonableness), Particular Social Group / Gender Based Persecution, Remand / Referral for Re Determination
Source Language: English

Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)) Hearing on Appeal (s.110(6)) Standard of Review (reasonableness) Particular Social Group / Gender Based Persecution +1 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 6 Party arguments 1

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Immigration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Under Irpa) / Appeal Heard by Rad; Decision Allowing Appeal and Referring Matter for Re Determination

Legal Issues

1 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility finding was unreasonable
2 Whether employment contracts are admissible as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
3 Whether the RAD should hold a hearing under s.110(6) IRPA