TB6-03491

TB6-03491

The RAD found the proposed new evidence did not meet s.110(4) and would not be admitted; however the RPD erred by failing to assess whether the Appellants provided a reasonable explanation or took reasonable steps to obtain identity documents as required by s.106, and by basing adverse credibility findings on post-arrival travel matters rather than events in Somalia; because this involved mixed fact and law and the RAD could not properly decide without the evidence presented before the RPD, the matter is referred back to the RPD for re-determination under ss.111(1)(c) and 111(2)(b) IRPA.

Citation
TB6-03491
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Referral to Refugee Protection Division for Re Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of the RPD set aside in part and matter referred to the RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Identity Documentation, Admission of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Referral for Re Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Identity Documentation Admission of New Evidence Standard of Review Referral for Re Determination

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Referral to Refugee Protection Division for Re Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new evidence meets the requirements of s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD properly applied s.106 IRPA regarding identity documentation and reasonable steps to obtain documents
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should refer the matter back to the RPD under ss.111(1)(c) and 111(2)(b) IRPA because it cannot decide without hearing the RPD evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the proposed new evidence did not meet s.110(4) and would not be admitted; however the RPD erred by failing to assess whether the Appellants provided a reasonable explanation or took reasonable steps to obtain identity documents as required by s.106, and by basing adverse credibility findings on post-arrival travel matters rather than events in Somalia; because this involved mixed fact and law and the RAD could not properly decide without the evidence presented before the RPD, the matter is referred back to the RPD for re-determination under ss.111(1)(c) and 111(2)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of the RPD set aside in part and matter referred to the RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel.

Orders

  • Refer matter to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination pursuant to ss.111(1)(c) and 111(2)(b) of the IRPA
  • Do not admit the proposed new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA