MB5-04212

MB5-04212

The RAD allowed the appeal and returned the matter to the RPD for re-determination because, although it deferred to the RPD on credibility generally, the RPD committed a legal error by failing to evaluate the appellants' right not to practice Islam under s.96 and by not adequately determining whether the reported incidents constituted harassment or persecution; the RAD also excluded the proffered medical and minor documentary evidence as not meeting s.110(4)/Singh.

Citation
MB5-04212
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant (child): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; File Returned to Refugee Protection Division for Re Determination
Outcome
appeal allowed in part; matter referred to the RPD for re-determination
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Religious Persecution, Standard of Review, Remittal for Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Religious Persecution Standard of Review Remittal 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (child)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; File Returned to Refugee Protection Division for Re Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether medical and documentary new evidence satisfy s.110(4) and Singh to be admitted on appeal
  2. 2 whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the appellants' conversion and religious practice
  3. 3 whether the RPD failed to consider the right not to practice a religion under s.96 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the appeal and returned the matter to the RPD for re-determination because, although it deferred to the RPD on credibility generally, the RPD committed a legal error by failing to evaluate the appellants' right not to practice Islam under s.96 and by not adequately determining whether the reported incidents constituted harassment or persecution; the RAD also excluded the proffered medical and minor documentary evidence as not meeting s.110(4)/Singh.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part; matter referred to the RPD for re-determination

Orders

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