MB9-11971

MB9-11971

The RPD's reasons were insufficient to sustain a finding that the appellant lacked credibility on the determinative issue; the RAD cannot fairly assess credibility without an oral hearing and, absent admissible probative new evidence, must set aside the RPD decision and refer the matter for a de novo re‑determination by a different RPD member; the email submitted on appeal was not authorized and lacked probative value.

Citation
MB9-11971
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division; RPD Determination Set Aside and Matter Referred for Re‑determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside; matter referred to the RPD for re‑determination by a different member
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Sexual Orientation, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Procedural Fairness, State Protection, Bias
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Sexual Orientation Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Procedural Fairness +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division; RPD Determination Set Aside and Matter Referred for Re‑determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment regarding the appellant's sexual orientation and related facts
  2. 2 Whether an email tendered after perfection is admissible as new evidence on appeal
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness, natural justice or bias occurred in the RPD process

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's reasons were insufficient to sustain a finding that the appellant lacked credibility on the determinative issue; the RAD cannot fairly assess credibility without an oral hearing and, absent admissible probative new evidence, must set aside the RPD decision and refer the matter for a de novo re‑determination by a different RPD member; the email submitted on appeal was not authorized and lacked probative value.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside; matter referred to the RPD for re‑determination by a different member

Orders

  • Do not authorize admission of the October 30, 2019 email as new evidence on appeal (email lacks probative value)
  • Allow the appeal under paragraph 111(1)(c) IRPA and set aside the RPD determination