TB7-00242

TB7-00242

The RAD applied correctness to the RPD's factual findings, concluded the Appellant's testimony was credible and supported by independent documentation showing risk to supporters of LGBTI persons, found the IFA failed because the Appellant would be recognized in Port Harcourt, and therefore set aside the RPD decision and substituted a positive finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees under s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-00242
Parties
Primary Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Male Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (appeal Allowed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: Appellants are Convention refugees.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review, Persecution for Association With LGBTI Persons, Oral Hearing Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Standard of Review Persecution for Association With LGBTI Persons +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Primary Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Male Minor Appellant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (appeal Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the Appellant's subjective fear of persecution
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Port Harcourt was viable
  3. 3 Whether the RPD properly weighed documentary evidence and Chairperson's Guidelines

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD applied correctness to the RPD's factual findings, concluded the Appellant's testimony was credible and supported by independent documentation showing risk to supporters of LGBTI persons, found the IFA failed because the Appellant would be recognized in Port Harcourt, and therefore set aside the RPD decision and substituted a positive finding that the Appellants are Convention refugees under s.111(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: Appellants are Convention refugees.

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA the RAD sets aside the RPD determination and substitutes its own determination that the Appellants are Convention refugees
  • RAD declines the request for an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA because no new evidence was submitted