VC0-00917

VC0-00917

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to notify that credibility remained at issue and concurrently made determinative adverse credibility findings, and because the RPD failed to properly consider material evidence; two post‑decision news articles were admitted as new evidence but the errors in procedure and evidence assessment require remittal to the RPD for redetermination.

Citation
VC0-00917
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Appeal Remitted to Refugee Protection Division for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted to Refugee Protection Division for redetermination.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Credibility Findings, Admission of New Evidence, Remittal/redetermination, Exclusion Under Refugee Convention Article 1 E
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Criminal Organizations (context) Procedural Fairness Credibility Findings Admission of New Evidence Remittal/redetermination +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Appeal Remitted to Refugee Protection Division for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to notify that credibility remained an issue
  2. 2 Whether the RPD properly assessed and considered the evidence before it
  3. 3 Whether new evidence filed on appeal should be admitted

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal because the RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to notify that credibility remained at issue and concurrently made determinative adverse credibility findings, and because the RPD failed to properly consider material evidence; two post‑decision news articles were admitted as new evidence but the errors in procedure and evidence assessment require remittal to the RPD for redetermination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted to Refugee Protection Division for redetermination.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed; matter sent back to the Refugee Protection Division to be redetermined.