TB7-04497

TB7-04497

The RAD concluded the RPD erred by underestimating the objective risk to the Appellant; credible personal evidence combined with updated and admissible country and testimonial evidence established a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of perceived political opinion or membership in a particular social group (Gulenist supporter). The RAD found no effective state protection or internal flight alternative and, pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b), set aside the RPD decision and substituted a finding that the Appellant is a Convention refugee.

Citation
TB7-04497
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Substituting RPD Determination (final RAD Determination)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and substitutes its own determination that the Appellant is a Convention refugee
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Well Founded Fear of Persecution, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative, Section 96 Threshold, Section 97 Objective Risk, Section 111(1)(b) Substitution Power
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Well Founded Fear of Persecution Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review +4 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Substituting RPD Determination (final RAD Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its assessment under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its assessment of objective risk under section 97 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the proposed new evidence is admissible under subsection 110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD erred by underestimating the objective risk to the Appellant; credible personal evidence combined with updated and admissible country and testimonial evidence established a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of perceived political opinion or membership in a particular social group (Gulenist supporter). The RAD found no effective state protection or internal flight alternative and, pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b), set aside the RPD decision and substituted a finding that the Appellant is a Convention refugee.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and substitutes its own determination that the Appellant is a Convention refugee

Orders

  • Set aside the Refugee Protection Division determination and substitute that the Appellant is a Convention refugee
  • Admit as evidence on appeal: US Department of State Human Rights Report for Turkey 2016; Asylum Research Consultancy Turkey report; letter of XXXX XXXX and Suspect's Record of Statement