TB7-16909

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB7-16909 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision July 11, 2018 Date de la décision Panel Pasquale Fiorino Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Richard Odeleye Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Appellant, XXXX XXXX, is a citizen of Jamaica, and appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated July 28, 2017, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant is not requesting a new hearing and is not submitting new evidence in support of his appeal. The Appellant asks that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the decision of the RPD and find that the Appellant is either a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, or that the RAD refer the matter back to the RPD for reconsideration. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD refers the matter to the RPD for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant is a citizen of Jamaica who alleges that he cannot return to his country because he is a gay man. ROLE OF THE RAD [4] For questions of fact, mixed fact and law, and law, the RAD has applied the standard of correctness as per Huruglica.1 ANALYSIS ON THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL [5] The Appellant alleges that at the end of the hearing, the RPD notified his counsel that no submissions were necessary. As a result, the Appellant's counsel was not provided an opportunity to give neither oral nor written submissions. The RAD has had an opportunity to listen to the recording of the RPD sessions and concludes that in fact, the Appellant's counsel was not given an opportunity to make submissions. This is a denial of natural justice and the matter must be returned to the RAD. DECISION [6] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(c) of the IRPA, the RAD refers the matter to the RPD for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel. [7] The appeal is allowed. (signed) "Pasquale Fiorino" Pasquale Fiorino July 11, 2018 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB7-16909 RAD.25.02 (April 24, 2018) Disponible en français 3 RAD.25.02 (April 24, 2018) Disponible en français