TB8-32140

TB8-32140

On independent assessment the RAD concluded the RPD erred by failing to engage with country conditions and documentary evidence demonstrating pervasive corruption, inadequate police response and ineffective implementation of gender-based violence protections in Venezuela; the Appellants rebutted the presumption of state protection and the negative RPD decision was set aside and remitted for redetermination by a different RPD panel.

Citation
TB8-32140
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / RAD Decision Allowing Appeal and Remitting to RPD for Redetermination Before a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(c) of the IRPA; RPD decision set aside and matter remitted to the RPD for redetermination before a differently-constituted panel.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Exclusion Article 1 F(b), Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Assessment, Remittal for Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights State Protection Gender Based Persecution Exclusion Article 1 F(b) Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Assessment +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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / RAD Decision Allowing Appeal and Remitting to RPD for Redetermination Before a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding that adequate state protection was available in Venezuela
  2. 2 Admissibility of new evidence on appeal under s.110(4) IRPA and Rule 29 RAD Rules
  3. 3 Whether RAD should defer to RPD findings or undertake independent assessment

Ratio Decidendi

On independent assessment the RAD concluded the RPD erred by failing to engage with country conditions and documentary evidence demonstrating pervasive corruption, inadequate police response and ineffective implementation of gender-based violence protections in Venezuela; the Appellants rebutted the presumption of state protection and the negative RPD decision was set aside and remitted for redetermination by a different RPD panel.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(c) of the IRPA; RPD decision set aside and matter remitted to the RPD for redetermination before a differently-constituted panel.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed; RPD negative decision set aside and matter referred back to the RPD for redetermination before a differently-constituted panel
  • Miami Herald article admitted as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA; Rule 29 application granted for late evidence including a witness letter and family court documents