MC0-08733

MC0-08733

The RPD erred by displacing the presumption of truth without identifying contradictions, omissions or inconsistencies, failed to assess the objective basis for risk and the availability of an IFA, and the RAD properly admitted the US visa applications as new evidence; therefore the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the RPD for redetermination.

Citation
MC0-08733
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant; Appellant: Associate Appellant; Appellant: Minor Appellant
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision: Appeal Allowed and Remitted to the Refugee Protection Division for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, New Evidence Admissibility, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Remittal for Redetermination, Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment New Evidence Admissibility Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Remittal for Redetermination Risk Assessment

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant

Appellant

Associate Appellant

Appellant

Minor Appellant

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision: Appeal Allowed and Remitted to the Refugee Protection Division for Redetermination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in rejecting the appellants' subjective fear for lack of credibility
  2. 2 Whether the RAD should admit the appellants' US visa applications as new evidence
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to assess the objective basis for the claim and the availability of an internal flight alternative

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred by displacing the presumption of truth without identifying contradictions, omissions or inconsistencies, failed to assess the objective basis for risk and the availability of an IFA, and the RAD properly admitted the US visa applications as new evidence; therefore the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the RPD for redetermination.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Admit the US visa applications submitted by the appellants as new evidence