TB9-02265

TB9-02265

The panel found that the appellants rebutted the presumption of state protection because objective evidence showed Sri Lankan authorities are ineffective in addressing sexual violence and may harass victims; the RPD erred by failing to account for the principal appellant's testimony that the alleged perpetrator had a home in Kandy, rendering Kandy not a viable IFA; on that basis the panel set aside the RPD decision and substituted a finding that the appellants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA.

Citation
TB9-02265
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
RPD decision set aside and substituted: appellants found to be Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Sexual Violence, Convention Refugee Status, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Sexual Violence Convention Refugee Status Credibility Assessment

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants rebutted the presumption of state protection in Sri Lanka
  2. 2 Whether Kandy constituted a viable internal flight alternative
  3. 3 Whether appellants meet the definition of Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found that the appellants rebutted the presumption of state protection because objective evidence showed Sri Lankan authorities are ineffective in addressing sexual violence and may harass victims; the RPD erred by failing to account for the principal appellant's testimony that the alleged perpetrator had a home in Kandy, rendering Kandy not a viable IFA; on that basis the panel set aside the RPD decision and substituted a finding that the appellants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

RPD decision set aside and substituted: appellants found to be Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA

Orders

  • Set aside the determination of the Refugee Protection Division and substitute a determination that the appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act