TB9-34391

TB9-34391

The appeal is allowed because the RPD's analysis of the sur place claim was inadequate: the RPD failed to properly question the appellant about his Falun Gong practice and knowledge in Canada and therefore did not properly determine the risk upon return. Under s.111(1)(c) IRPA the matter is referred to the RPD for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB9-34391
Parties
Appellant (person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal): XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision — Appeal Allowed and Matter Referred for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.
Legal Topics
Sur Place Claim, Credibility Assessment, Redetermination Referral, Convention Refugee Status
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Sur Place Claim Credibility Assessment Redetermination Referral Convention Refugee Status

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal)

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision — Appeal Allowed and Matter Referred for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings regarding the appellant's passport and exit from China
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to adequately assess the sur place claim by not considering or questioning the appellant about his practice of Falun Gong in Canada
  3. 3 Whether the RAD had jurisdiction to hold an oral hearing when no new evidence was admitted

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the RPD's analysis of the sur place claim was inadequate: the RPD failed to properly question the appellant about his Falun Gong practice and knowledge in Canada and therefore did not properly determine the risk upon return. Under s.111(1)(c) IRPA the matter is referred to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.