TB7-02490

TB7-02490

The RAD denied the Rule 29 application because the documents were reasonably available before the Appeal Record was filed and no adequate explanation for delay was given; the RAD accepted RPD credibility findings concerning material inconsistencies and omissions (POE/BOC/oral) and concluded Appellants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection by clear and convincing evidence; accordingly the RPD decision that the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-02490
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Including Rule 29 Application for New Evidence (final)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Late Evidence (rule 29), Credibility and Inconsistencies Between Boc/poe/oral Testimony, Presumption and Rebuttal of State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Allegation of Counsel Incompetence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Admissibility of Late Evidence (rule 29) Credibility and Inconsistencies Between Boc/poe/oral Testimony Presumption and Rebuttal of State Protection Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Allegation of Counsel Incompetence

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Including Rule 29 Application for New Evidence (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 29 new evidence should be admitted
  2. 2 Whether the RPD's credibility findings were unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether Appellants rebutted the presumption of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD denied the Rule 29 application because the documents were reasonably available before the Appeal Record was filed and no adequate explanation for delay was given; the RAD accepted RPD credibility findings concerning material inconsistencies and omissions (POE/BOC/oral) and concluded Appellants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection by clear and convincing evidence; accordingly the RPD decision that the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Rule 29 application to admit new evidence denied
  • RPD decision of January 16, 2017 confirming Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed