TB7-23670

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB7-23670 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision July 24, 2018 Date de la décision Panel Pasquale Fiorino Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal David Matas Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Appellant, XXXX XXXX, is a citizen of Somalia and appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated September 29, 2017, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant is not requesting a new hearing and is submitting new evidence in support of his appeal. The Appellant asks that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the decision of the RPD and find that the Appellant is either a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, or that the RAD refer the matter back to the RPD for reconsideration. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD refers the matter to the RPD for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleges that he cannot return to Somalia due to his membership in the XXXX XXXX and because he would be perceived as a returning Westerner. ROLE OF THE RAD [4] For questions of fact, mixed fact and law, and law, the RAD has applied the standard of correctness as per Huruglica.1 NEW EVIDENCE [5] Given the disposition of this Appeal, the RAD will not deal with the new evidence. ANALYSIS ON THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL [6] Having read the RPD decision, the RAD concludes that the reasoning of the RPD is neither coherent nor legally logical. The RAD agrees with the Appellant's submissions that the RPD makes contradictory findings with respect to the allegation of whether the Appellant would be persecuted in Somalia because he would be perceived as a returning Westerner, and whether he would be at risk due to his membership in the XXXX XXXX clan. Since these issues involve an analysis of the Appellant's credibility, the RAD must return the matter to the RPD. DECISION [7] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(c) of the IRPA, the RAD refers the matter back to the RPD for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel. [8] The Appeal is allowed. (signed) "Pasquale Fiorino" Pasquale Fiorino July 24, 2018 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB7-23670 RAD.25.02 (April 24, 2018) Disponible en français 3 RAD.25.02 (April 24, 2018) Disponible en français