TB7-20454

TB7-20454

The RAD allowed the appeal and referred the matter to the RPD for redetermination because the RPD committed determinative errors: it failed to explain why it concluded MASSOB's motivation was financial rather than recruitment, failed to engage and weigh key testimonial and documentary evidence bearing on whether MASSOB could locate the appellant in proposed IFAs, and provided insufficient analysis on objective country conditions and the appellant's profile; the deficiencies prevent the RAD from substituting its own findings, thus referral under IRPA s.111(1)(c) and s.111(2) is required.

Citation
TB7-20454
Parties
Appellant / Person(s) the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division; Referral to Refugee Protection Division for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Findings, Redetermination, Standard of Review, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Findings Redetermination Standard of Review Convention Refugee +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person(s) the Subject of the Appeal

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division; Referral to Refugee Protection Division for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division properly assessed an internal flight alternative to Abuja
  2. 2 Whether the RPD adequately engaged and weighed the appellant's credibility and documentary evidence
  3. 3 Whether the RAD can substitute reasons or must refer for redetermination

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal and referred the matter to the RPD for redetermination because the RPD committed determinative errors: it failed to explain why it concluded MASSOB's motivation was financial rather than recruitment, failed to engage and weigh key testimonial and documentary evidence bearing on whether MASSOB could locate the appellant in proposed IFAs, and provided insufficient analysis on objective country conditions and the appellant's profile; the deficiencies prevent the RAD from substituting its own findings, thus referral under IRPA s.111(1)(c) and s.111(2) is required.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(c) and subsection 111(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the matter is referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.