VB9-00614

VB9-00614

The RAD allowed the appeal and remitted the matter because the RPD failed to canvass and decide the potentially determinative issue of exclusion under Article 1F(b) despite contradictory documentary and testimonial evidence; the RPD must reconsider exclusion, notify the Minister and allow intervention, and if exclusion is not found, reassess risk and IFA findings in light of any evidence heard on exclusion.

Citation
VB9-00614
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant; Appellants: Associate Appellants; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Allowed and Remitted to RPD for Redetermination
Outcome
appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and matter referred to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel
Legal Topics
Article 1 F(b) Exclusion, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility and Misrepresentation, State Protection, Procedural Fairness, New Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Article 1 F(b) Exclusion Internal Flight Alternative Credibility and Misrepresentation State Protection Procedural Fairness +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant

Appellant

Associate Appellants

Appellants

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Allowed and Remitted to RPD for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether Article 1F(b) exclusion applies to the Principal Appellant
  2. 2 whether the RPD erred by failing to canvass the exclusion issue at the hearing
  3. 3 whether viable internal flight alternatives exist in Mexico and Nigeria

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal and remitted the matter because the RPD failed to canvass and decide the potentially determinative issue of exclusion under Article 1F(b) despite contradictory documentary and testimonial evidence; the RPD must reconsider exclusion, notify the Minister and allow intervention, and if exclusion is not found, reassess risk and IFA findings in light of any evidence heard on exclusion.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and matter referred to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel

Orders

  • Refer the matter to the RPD for redetermination
  • RPD must consider whether Article 1F(b) exclusion applies to the Principal Appellant