VB6-04838

VB6-04838

The RAD allowed the appeal and substituted the RPD decision, finding on the balance of probabilities that the appellants (Eritrean citizens) engaged in public criticism of the Eritrean regime in a Canadian church and that those statements could have been communicated to Eritrean authorities; given objective country evidence about Eritrea's authoritarian practices and treatment of returnees and failed claimants, the appellants face persecution on return. The RPD erred by failing to address the sur place aspects, by making unsupported inferences about loyalty based on exit permits, and by not putting a key credibility concern to the principal appellant.

Citation
VB6-04838
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (also known as XXXX XXXX XXXX)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Decision Substituting RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: appellants are refugees under section 96 of IRPA.
Legal Topics
Sur Place Claims, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Risk Assessment, New Evidence Admissibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Sur Place Claims Credibility Assessment State Protection Risk Assessment New Evidence Admissibility

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 5 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX (also known as XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Decision Substituting RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the RPD err in its credibility findings?
  2. 2 Did the RPD err in its assessment of the appellants' religious activities in Canada and their sur place claim?
  3. 3 Did the RPD err in its assessment of the risk on return including treatment of failed refugee claimants and state protection?

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal and substituted the RPD decision, finding on the balance of probabilities that the appellants (Eritrean citizens) engaged in public criticism of the Eritrean regime in a Canadian church and that those statements could have been communicated to Eritrean authorities; given objective country evidence about Eritrea's authoritarian practices and treatment of returnees and failed claimants, the appellants face persecution on return. The RPD erred by failing to address the sur place aspects, by making unsupported inferences about loyalty based on exit permits, and by not putting a key credibility concern to the principal appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and substituted: appellants are refugees under section 96 of IRPA.

Orders

  • Set aside RPD determination and substitute finding that the appellants are refugees under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act