VB9-00871

VB9-00871

The RAD allowed the appeal for the Principal Appellant, co-Appellant and Minor Appellant 2 because the evidence, including the police's contemporaneous admission that they could not protect the family owing to the persecutors' links to powerful gangsters and documentary evidence of police corruption and political influence, established on a balance of probabilities that adequate state protection in Pakistan was unavailable; the RPD erred in requiring direct intervention by the gangsters themselves and in overestimating police ability to protect.

Citation
VB9-00871
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant 1: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant 2: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and denied in part; RPD determination set aside for three appellants and substituted finding that they are persons in need of protection; appeal denied for Minor Appellant 1.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Credibility, Persecution, Family Based Claims
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Admission of Fresh Evidence Credibility Persecution Family Based Claims

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant 1

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant 2

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adequate state protection was available in Pakistan
  2. 2 Whether RAD should admit late evidence under RAD Rule 29
  3. 3 Whether Minor Appellant 1 has a well-founded fear in her country of citizenship

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal for the Principal Appellant, co-Appellant and Minor Appellant 2 because the evidence, including the police's contemporaneous admission that they could not protect the family owing to the persecutors' links to powerful gangsters and documentary evidence of police corruption and political influence, established on a balance of probabilities that adequate state protection in Pakistan was unavailable; the RPD erred in requiring direct intervention by the gangsters themselves and in overestimating police ability to protect.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and denied in part; RPD determination set aside for three appellants and substituted finding that they are persons in need of protection; appeal denied for Minor Appellant 1.

Orders

  • New evidence application denied (RAD Rule 29).
  • RPD determination set aside with respect to XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX and substituted pursuant to section 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: they are persons in need of protection.