TB6-17503

TB6-17503

The RPD erred in finding that the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection; on independent review the appellants are credible and the preponderance of evidence (country documents and facts of threats, shooting, ineffective investigation, witness intimidation and police corruption) shows adequate state protection was not reasonably available in Saint Vincent; therefore appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA and the RAD sets aside and substitutes the RPD decision accordingly.

Citation
TB6-17503
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX); Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Redetermination) / Redetermination Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: appellants are persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility, Country Conditions, Standard of Review, Need for Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Credibility Country Conditions Standard of Review Need for Protection

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 XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX)

Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Redetermination) / Redetermination Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants rebutted the presumption of adequate state protection in Saint Vincent
  2. 2 Whether the appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in its assessment of evidence and mixed fact-and-law issues

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred in finding that the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection; on independent review the appellants are credible and the preponderance of evidence (country documents and facts of threats, shooting, ineffective investigation, witness intimidation and police corruption) shows adequate state protection was not reasonably available in Saint Vincent; therefore appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA and the RAD sets aside and substitutes the RPD decision accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: appellants are persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA, set aside the determination of the Refugee Protection Division and substitute it with the RAD determination that the appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA.