TB6-07996

TB6-07996

The RPD breached procedural fairness by denying the appellants the opportunity to address credibility concerns and performed an inadequate state protection analysis failing to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that adequate state protection would be reasonably forthcoming in the appellants' particular circumstances; therefore the RAD could not confirm the RPD decision and, lacking new evidence or an oral hearing, must refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

Citation
TB6-07996
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed and matter referred back to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility Findings, Natural Justice, Roma Discrimination, Referral for Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness State Protection Credibility Findings Natural Justice Roma Discrimination +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (female)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD denied the appellants natural justice by restricting counsel and failing to allow addressing credibility concerns
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in concluding adequate state protection would be reasonably forthcoming in Hungary for these Roma appellants
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to consider the minor appellant's individual merits

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD breached procedural fairness by denying the appellants the opportunity to address credibility concerns and performed an inadequate state protection analysis failing to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that adequate state protection would be reasonably forthcoming in the appellants' particular circumstances; therefore the RAD could not confirm the RPD decision and, lacking new evidence or an oral hearing, must refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed and matter referred back to the Refugee Protection Division for redetermination by a differently constituted panel

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA, the matter is referred back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel
  • The RAD cannot confirm or substitute the RPD's determination given denial of procedural fairness and inadequate state protection analysis; no new evidence was submitted under s.110(4) and no oral hearing requested under s.110(6)