TB8-19178

TB8-19178

The RAD found critical legal error in the RPD decision concerning the Principal and First Minor appellants: the RPD relied on minor inconsistencies and failed to adequately probe the relationship with the husband or assess a domestic violence claim in light of the Gender Guidelines, producing an unreliable credibility and IFA analysis; accordingly the RAD allowed those appeals and referred them back to the RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel. The Second Minor appellants' appeal was dismissed because the appellants conceded he did not face persecution and RAD found no error.

Citation
TB8-19178
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Allow appeals of Principal Appellant and First Minor Appellant; refer their matters back to the RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel. Dismiss appeal of Second Minor Appellant and confirm RPD decision concerning him.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Domestic Violence, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Natural Justice, Adjournment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Gender Based Violence Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Domestic Violence +3 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

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility analysis
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred by failing to consider a domestic violence ground
  3. 3 Whether counsel at the RPD was incompetent resulting in breach of natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found critical legal error in the RPD decision concerning the Principal and First Minor appellants: the RPD relied on minor inconsistencies and failed to adequately probe the relationship with the husband or assess a domestic violence claim in light of the Gender Guidelines, producing an unreliable credibility and IFA analysis; accordingly the RAD allowed those appeals and referred them back to the RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel. The Second Minor appellants' appeal was dismissed because the appellants conceded he did not face persecution and RAD found no error.

Court Disposition

Allow appeals of Principal Appellant and First Minor Appellant; refer their matters back to the RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel. Dismiss appeal of Second Minor Appellant and confirm RPD decision concerning him.

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA refer Principal and First Minor Appellants' matters to the RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel
  • Direct the RPD on re-determination to properly assess the nature of the relationship between the Husband and the Principal and First Minor Appellants