TB4-12208

TB4-12208

The RAD applied s.110(4) and s.171(a.3) and its evidentiary test (credibility/trustworthiness, relevance, materiality) to the proffered new documents, finding them not new or not credible and therefore inadmissible; without admissible new evidence the RAD refused an oral hearing under s.110(6) and independently reviewed the record and country evidence, agreeing with the RPD that a viable IFA existed in Kiev; accordingly the RPD decision was correct and is confirmed and the appeals are dismissed.

Citation
TB4-12208
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Determination on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of New Evidence, Internal Flight Alternative, Standard of Review and Deference, Credibility Findings, Oral Hearing Under S.110(6)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Admissibility of New Evidence Internal Flight Alternative Standard of Review and Deference Credibility Findings Oral Hearing Under S.110(6)

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Determination on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants' post‑RPD documents meet s.110(4) and are admissible on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the new evidence raises a serious credibility issue central to the RPD decision justifying an oral hearing under s.110(6)
  3. 3 What degree and scope of deference the RAD must give to RPD findings of fact and credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD applied s.110(4) and s.171(a.3) and its evidentiary test (credibility/trustworthiness, relevance, materiality) to the proffered new documents, finding them not new or not credible and therefore inadmissible; without admissible new evidence the RAD refused an oral hearing under s.110(6) and independently reviewed the record and country evidence, agreeing with the RPD that a viable IFA existed in Kiev; accordingly the RPD decision was correct and is confirmed and the appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed