TB9-08010

TB9-08010

The RAD admitted the psychiatric report, the Principal Appellant's affidavit and the record of allegations as new, relevant and credible evidence under s.110(4) IRPA, found on a balance of probabilities that former counsel advised the Principal Appellant to misrepresent her claim thereby causing a breach of natural justice, and therefore allowed the appeals of the Principal Appellant and one Minor Associate Appellant and referred those matters to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel; the US-born minor's appeal was dismissed because he is a US citizen and no claim against the US was advanced.

Citation
TB9-08010
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant (us Born): XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Counsel for the Minister: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal of US-born minor dismissed; appeals of Principal Appellant and other Minor Appellant allowed and referred to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Credibility Assessment, Counsel Misconduct, Referral for Redetermination, Viva Voce Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Natural Justice New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Credibility Assessment Counsel Misconduct Referral for 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant (us Born)

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent / Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants produced new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA warranting admission
  2. 2 Whether the Principal Appellant was denied natural justice because former counsel advised misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether the US-born minor could be a Convention refugee or person in need of protection given US birth/citizenship

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD admitted the psychiatric report, the Principal Appellant's affidavit and the record of allegations as new, relevant and credible evidence under s.110(4) IRPA, found on a balance of probabilities that former counsel advised the Principal Appellant to misrepresent her claim thereby causing a breach of natural justice, and therefore allowed the appeals of the Principal Appellant and one Minor Associate Appellant and referred those matters to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel; the US-born minor's appeal was dismissed because he is a US citizen and no claim against the US was advanced.

Court Disposition

Appeal of US-born minor dismissed; appeals of Principal Appellant and other Minor Appellant allowed and referred to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

Orders

  • Appeal of XXXX XXXX dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA
  • Appeals of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX allowed and matter referred to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(c) IRPA