TB9-14768

TB9-14768

The RPD erred by relying on peripheral and unreliable evidence (Facebook post, speculative doubts about a Roma self-government letter, and irrelevant points in a psychiatric report) to reject the appellants' Roma identity and credibility; on independent review the RAD found the appellants are Roma, suffered cumulative persecution, have rebutted state protection and lack a viable internal flight alternative, and therefore are Convention refugees; the RAD sets aside the RPD decision and substitutes its own pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b).

Citation
TB9-14768
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Final RAD Decision on Appeal From RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD determination and substitutes its own decision that the appellants are Convention refugees.
Legal Topics
Roma Ethnicity, Credibility Findings, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Persecution, Evidence Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Roma Ethnicity Credibility Findings State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Final RAD Decision on Appeal From RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants have established membership in a Convention refugee class as Roma
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in credibility and ethnicity findings based on peripheral evidence
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD erred by relying on peripheral and unreliable evidence (Facebook post, speculative doubts about a Roma self-government letter, and irrelevant points in a psychiatric report) to reject the appellants' Roma identity and credibility; on independent review the RAD found the appellants are Roma, suffered cumulative persecution, have rebutted state protection and lack a viable internal flight alternative, and therefore are Convention refugees; the RAD sets aside the RPD decision and substitutes its own pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD determination and substitutes its own decision that the appellants are Convention refugees.

Orders

  • Set aside the RPD determination and substitute the RAD determination that the appellants are Convention refugees pursuant to Immigration and Refugee Protection Act s.111(1)(b)