VB8-00294

VB8-00294

The RAD allowed the appeal and referred the matter to the RPD for redetermination because the RPD's reasoning on Peru was unclear and conflated or implicitly applied an Internal Flight Alternative without proper procedure or opportunity for the Appellants to address it, and the RPD overlooked relevant evidence; the limited new evidence admitted did not warrant a RAD hearing under s.110(6) IRPA but the deficiencies require redetermination by a differently constituted Panel under s.111(1)(c).

Citation
VB8-00294
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Immigration and Refugee Refugee Appeal Division Appeal of RPD Decision / Appeal to Rad; Matter Referred to RPD for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; referred to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted Panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA
Legal Topics
Person in Need of Protection, Convention Refugee, Internal Flight Alternative, New Evidence, Credibility, Referral for Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Person in Need of Protection Convention Refugee Internal Flight Alternative New Evidence Credibility +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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Immigration and Refugee Refugee Appeal Division Appeal of RPD Decision / Appeal to Rad; Matter Referred to RPD for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence should be admitted and whether a hearing is required under s.110 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its assessment of risk on removal to Peru
  3. 3 Whether the RPD effectively made and failed to follow proper process for an Internal Flight Alternative (Abancay)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal and referred the matter to the RPD for redetermination because the RPD's reasoning on Peru was unclear and conflated or implicitly applied an Internal Flight Alternative without proper procedure or opportunity for the Appellants to address it, and the RPD overlooked relevant evidence; the limited new evidence admitted did not warrant a RAD hearing under s.110(6) IRPA but the deficiencies require redetermination by a differently constituted Panel under s.111(1)(c).

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The RAD refers the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted Panel pursuant to section 111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.