TB6-08610

TB6-08610

RAD found the RPD erred by selectively relying on a single NDP document and failing to adequately consider and test material affidavits and conflicting country evidence; the RAD admitted the post-rejection newspaper article as new evidence but concluded outstanding credibility issues and insufficient oral testing prevented a final determination, and therefore allowed the appeal and referred the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Citation
TB6-08610
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Heard by Rad; Matter Referred Back to RPD for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; RAD refers matter to RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA
Legal Topics
Refugee Claim, Female Genital Mutilation, Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Findings, Oral Hearing Under S.110(6), Best Interests of the Child, Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Claim Female Genital Mutilation Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Findings Oral Hearing Under S.110(6) +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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Heard by Rad; Matter Referred Back to RPD for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred by selectively relying on documentary evidence and failing to consider key evidence
  2. 2 Whether the July 24, 2016 New Telegraph article is admissible as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and RAD rules r.29
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing should be granted under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

RAD found the RPD erred by selectively relying on a single NDP document and failing to adequately consider and test material affidavits and conflicting country evidence; the RAD admitted the post-rejection newspaper article as new evidence but concluded outstanding credibility issues and insufficient oral testing prevented a final determination, and therefore allowed the appeal and referred the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; RAD refers matter to RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA

Orders

  • Refer matter to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel
  • Admit the New Telegraph article dated July 24, 2016 as new evidence on the appeal record