TB9-07328

TB9-07328

The RAD concluded the RPD erred in law and fact by drawing determinative adverse credibility inferences from minor inaccuracies and by failing to assess and weigh corroborative documentary evidence; the RPD failed to properly assess cumulative discrimination and country conditions as amounting to persecution of Alevi Kurds and of an HDP supporter; state protection and internal flight alternative were not available; on the full record the appellants have a well-founded fear of persecution and are Convention refugees, so the RAD set aside the RPD determination and substituted its own finding.

Citation
TB9-07328
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and finds appellants are Convention refugees
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admission of New Evidence, Natural Justice and Interpretation, Country Conditions, Ethno Religious Persecution (alevi, Kurdish), Political Opinion and Membership (hdp), Gender Based Persecution, Cumulative Risk, State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Credibility Assessment Admission of New Evidence Natural Justice and Interpretation Country Conditions +5 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 admissibility of affidavit as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 whether deficient interpretation breached natural justice
  3. 3 whether RPD erred in adverse credibility findings regarding PA's political knowledge and testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD erred in law and fact by drawing determinative adverse credibility inferences from minor inaccuracies and by failing to assess and weigh corroborative documentary evidence; the RPD failed to properly assess cumulative discrimination and country conditions as amounting to persecution of Alevi Kurds and of an HDP supporter; state protection and internal flight alternative were not available; on the full record the appellants have a well-founded fear of persecution and are Convention refugees, so the RAD set aside the RPD determination and substituted its own finding.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RAD sets aside RPD decision and finds appellants are Convention refugees

Orders

  • Application to admit PA affidavit as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA denied
  • Request for an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA denied