MB4-00167

MB4-00167

The RPD's decision was unreasonable on questions of fact because it reached adverse credibility conclusions based on unsupported cultural stereotypes and a superficial country-conditions analysis; therefore the RAD allows the appeal and, pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA, refers the matter back to the RPD for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MB4-00167
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Matter Referred to RPD for Redetermination
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; RPD decision set aside as unreasonable on questions of fact and referred for redetermination
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Country Conditions, Sexual Orientation Persecution, Delay in Claiming Asylum, Admission of New Evidence, Standard of Review
Source Language
english
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Country Conditions Sexual Orientation Persecution Delay in Claiming Asylum Admission of New Evidence +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Matter Referred to RPD for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility finding that the appellant was not homosexual was reasonable
  2. 2 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility finding based on delay in claiming protection was reasonable
  3. 3 Whether the RPD's country-conditions analysis was adequate to support its conclusions on risk

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's decision was unreasonable on questions of fact because it reached adverse credibility conclusions based on unsupported cultural stereotypes and a superficial country-conditions analysis; therefore the RAD allows the appeal and, pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA, refers the matter back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel to hear further evidence on credibility and country conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; RPD decision set aside as unreasonable on questions of fact and referred for redetermination

Orders

  • Refer matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • New RPD hearing to determine credibility and assess country conditions with leave to introduce new evidence