TB5-02645

TB5-02645

The RAD allowed the appeal and referred the matter to the RPD for redetermination because the RPD erred in two central credibility findings (discounting the summons due to an address discrepancy and applying an overly specific expectation of Falun Gong knowledge) while upholding a separate significant credibility finding about the number of PSB visits; given those mixed findings and the absence of new evidence that would permit substitution, referral under s.111(1)(c) IRPA was required.

Citation
TB5-02645
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Rad; Referral to RPD for Re Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Basis of Claim Amendments, Religious Persecution (falun Gong), Standard of Review, Referral for Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Basis of Claim Amendments Religious Persecution (falun Gong) Standard of Review Referral for Redetermination

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Rad; Referral to RPD for Re Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by and based on the evidence
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was required to update her Basis of Claim after filing when material events occurred
  3. 3 Whether the summons should have been given weight despite an address discrepancy between the hukou and the summons

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal and referred the matter to the RPD for redetermination because the RPD erred in two central credibility findings (discounting the summons due to an address discrepancy and applying an overly specific expectation of Falun Gong knowledge) while upholding a separate significant credibility finding about the number of PSB visits; given those mixed findings and the absence of new evidence that would permit substitution, referral under s.111(1)(c) IRPA was required.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Orders

  • Refer matter to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act