TB6-02585

TB6-02585

The RAD concluded the RPD failed to properly weigh the factual evidence and did not make necessary factual and credibility findings regarding serious incidents (including sexual assaults) and reporting to authorities; because unresolved credibility and factual issues could not be resolved without oral evidence, the RAD referred the matter back to the RPD for redetermination under s.111(1)(c) IRPA, applying the guidance in Huruglica that the correctness standard governs such reviews.

Citation
TB6-02585
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal; Referral to RPD for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter referred back to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, State Protection, Standard of Review, Persecution, Ethnic Discrimination (roma), Credibility Findings, Referral for Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection State Protection Standard of Review Persecution Ethnic Discrimination (roma) +2 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal; Referral to RPD for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in concluding the appellants were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to properly weigh personal and documentary evidence and make necessary factual and credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should apply the correctness standard to RPD findings of fact/mixed fact and law in cases raising no oral credibility issues

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD failed to properly weigh the factual evidence and did not make necessary factual and credibility findings regarding serious incidents (including sexual assaults) and reporting to authorities; because unresolved credibility and factual issues could not be resolved without oral evidence, the RAD referred the matter back to the RPD for redetermination under s.111(1)(c) IRPA, applying the guidance in Huruglica that the correctness standard governs such reviews.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter referred back to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, refer the matter back to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel