VB9-03709

VB9-03709

The RAD admitted the police report as new evidence under s.110(4) and Singh/Raza (it was not reasonably available and is credible and relevant); on independent review the Appellants are credible on core facts and objective country evidence (UNHCR) establishes that witnesses are not afforded operationally effective state protection in Honduras; there is no viable IFA; therefore the Appellants face a risk to life or cruel and unusual punishment and are persons in need of protection under s.97(1); RAD sets aside the RPD decision and substitutes its own determination under s.111(1)(b).

Citation
VB9-03709
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Decision (appeal Allowed; Substitution Under S111(1)(b))
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside; RAD substituted its own determination that the Appellants are persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection Adequacy, Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Assessment, Substitution of Decision
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Administrative Law Human Rights State Protection Adequacy Internal Flight Alternative 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellants

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)

Respondent Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Decision (appeal Allowed; Substitution Under S111(1)(b))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RAD should admit new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA (Singh/Raza factors)
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in finding adequate state protection in Honduras
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative exists in Honduras for the Appellants

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD admitted the police report as new evidence under s.110(4) and Singh/Raza (it was not reasonably available and is credible and relevant); on independent review the Appellants are credible on core facts and objective country evidence (UNHCR) establishes that witnesses are not afforded operationally effective state protection in Honduras; there is no viable IFA; therefore the Appellants face a risk to life or cruel and unusual punishment and are persons in need of protection under s.97(1); RAD sets aside the RPD decision and substitutes its own determination under s.111(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside; RAD substituted its own determination that the Appellants are persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Admit the police report as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza factors
  • Allow the appeal and, pursuant to s.111(1)(b) IRPA, set aside the RPD decision and substitute a determination that the Appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA