MB8-13445

MB8-13445

Female appellant: RPD did not err — she was a Brazilian permanent resident at the RPD hearing, did not establish a serious possibility of persecution in Brazil, and the RAD need not assess Haiti; Male appellant: RPD erred by conducting a microscopic credibility analysis and failing to sufficiently analyze his fear related to his father's murder by the Chimères, therefore the matter is referred to a differently constituted RPD panel for re-determination.

Citation
MB8-13445
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: male appellant's appeal allowed and matter referred to RPD; female appellant's appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Persecution, Permanent Resident Status, Exclusion Under Section 98 IRPA, Procedural Fairness, Referral to RPD
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Credibility Assessment Persecution Permanent Resident Status Exclusion Under Section 98 IRPA Procedural Fairness +1 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the female appellant was a permanent resident of Brazil at the relevant date and whether the RPD erred in assessing her fear in Brazil
  2. 2 Whether discrimination against Black people in Brazil amounts to persecution applicable to a Haitian national
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the male appellant regarding his fear in Haiti

Ratio Decidendi

Female appellant: RPD did not err — she was a Brazilian permanent resident at the RPD hearing, did not establish a serious possibility of persecution in Brazil, and the RAD need not assess Haiti; Male appellant: RPD erred by conducting a microscopic credibility analysis and failing to sufficiently analyze his fear related to his father's murder by the Chimères, therefore the matter is referred to a differently constituted RPD panel for re-determination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: male appellant's appeal allowed and matter referred to RPD; female appellant's appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Orders

  • Pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(c) refer the male appellant's claim to a differently constituted panel of the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination
  • Pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(a) dismiss the female appellant's appeal and confirm the RPD determination that she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection