TB5-01322

TB5-01322

The interpreter's affidavit and corrected transcript were not reasonably available at the RPD hearing and therefore admissible under s.110(4); the demonstrated interpretation errors materially impaired the male appellant's ability to tell his story and resulted in a denial of natural justice. Accordingly the RAD allowed the appeal and, pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA, referred the matter to the RPD for re-determination by a differently‑constituted panel (with directions for proper interpretation and consideration of state protection).

Citation
TB5-01322
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division After RPD Refusal; RAD Refers Matter to RPD for Re Determination by a Differently‑constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently‑constituted panel
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Standard of Appellate Review by RAD, Quality of Interpretation and Right to Interpreter, Natural Justice/denial of Fairness, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law (language Rights) Refugee Protection Admissibility of Fresh Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Standard of Appellate Review by RAD Quality of Interpretation and Right to Interpreter +2 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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division After RPD Refusal; RAD Refers Matter to RPD for Re Determination by a Differently‑constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interpreter's affidavit and corrected transcript constitute evidence admissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether errors in interpretation at the RPD hearing impeached the appellants' ability to tell their story and breached natural justice
  3. 3 What standard of appellate review the RAD should apply to RPD credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The interpreter's affidavit and corrected transcript were not reasonably available at the RPD hearing and therefore admissible under s.110(4); the demonstrated interpretation errors materially impaired the male appellant's ability to tell his story and resulted in a denial of natural justice. Accordingly the RAD allowed the appeal and, pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA, referred the matter to the RPD for re-determination by a differently‑constituted panel (with directions for proper interpretation and consideration of state protection).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently‑constituted panel

Orders

  • Refer the matter to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently‑constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA
  • Admit the certified interpreter affidavit and corrected transcript as fresh evidence (excluding portions expressing the interpreter's impressions/opinions)