MB5-00905

MB5-00905

The RAD concluded the RPD's adverse credibility findings were tainted by over‑vigilant microscopic analysis and perverse inferences (failure to account for interpreter/linguistic context and minor inconsistencies). The RAD admitted one piece of new documentary evidence (African Election Database) as reasonably not expected to have been presented at the hearing, set aside the RPD determination that claimants were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection, and remitted the matter to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently constituted panel.

Citation
MB5-00905
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor, Dependent on Principal Appellant): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (appeal Allowed; Remitted to Rpd)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and matter referred to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently constituted panel.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Standard of Review and Deference Between RPD and RAD, Remedies and Referral to RPD, Interpreter Reliability/cross‑language Testimony
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Standard of Review and Deference Between RPD and RAD Remedies and Referral to RPD Interpreter Reliability/cross‑language Testimony

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor, Dependent on Principal Appellant)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (appeal Allowed; Remitted to Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified and reasonable
  2. 2 Whether the two documents tendered on appeal qualify as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 What degree of deference the RAD must give to RPD credibility findings and when it must substitute its own determination

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD's adverse credibility findings were tainted by over‑vigilant microscopic analysis and perverse inferences (failure to account for interpreter/linguistic context and minor inconsistencies). The RAD admitted one piece of new documentary evidence (African Election Database) as reasonably not expected to have been presented at the hearing, set aside the RPD determination that claimants were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection, and remitted the matter to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently constituted panel.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD decision set aside and matter referred to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently constituted panel.

Orders

  • Set aside the Refugee Protection Division's decision rejecting the refugee protection claims of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX.
  • Admit document titled 'African Election Database' as new evidence under subsection 110(4) IRPA.