MC0-09100

MC0-09100

The RAD determined that although the RPD did not breach procedural fairness (videoconference, interpretation, timing and missing exhibits did not render the hearing unfair), internal inconsistencies in the RPD's credibility findings impacted the first prong of the IFA analysis; because those inconsistencies were relied on to find the proposed IFAs safe, the RAD set aside the RPD determination and remitted the claims to the RPD for re-determination by a different panel.

Citation
MC0-09100
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Co Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant (daughter): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / RAD Decision on Appeal (appeal Allowed and Remitted to Rpd)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and matter remitted to the RPD for re-determination by another panel; no oral RAD hearing under s.110(6) IRPA granted.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Remittal for Re Determination, Videoconference Hearings
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Procedural Fairness Credibility Assessment Remittal for Re Determination Videoconference Hearings

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant (daughter)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / RAD Decision on Appeal (appeal Allowed and Remitted to Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness in conducting the hearing via videoconference and in handling exhibits and interpretation
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its internal flight alternative (IFA) analysis
  3. 3 Whether internal inconsistencies in credibility findings affected the IFA analysis and the determinative outcome

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD determined that although the RPD did not breach procedural fairness (videoconference, interpretation, timing and missing exhibits did not render the hearing unfair), internal inconsistencies in the RPD's credibility findings impacted the first prong of the IFA analysis; because those inconsistencies were relied on to find the proposed IFAs safe, the RAD set aside the RPD determination and remitted the claims to the RPD for re-determination by a different panel.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and matter remitted to the RPD for re-determination by another panel; no oral RAD hearing under s.110(6) IRPA granted.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • RPD determination set aside