TB7-05763

TB7-05763

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the purported new evidence failed s.110(4) (it could reasonably have been presented to the RPD or concerned pre-existing events), the appellants' account contained material inconsistencies and unexplained omissions that destroyed credibility, and the delay in claiming protection undermined their asserted fear; accordingly there is no basis to find them refugees or persons in need of protection and no reason to refer for redetermination.

Citation
TB7-05763
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant / Spouse: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under section 111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Findings, Delay in Claim, Standard of Review, Protection Claim, Section 110(4) IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Findings Delay in Claim Standard of Review Protection Claim +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant / Spouse

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents submitted on appeal meet s.110(4) IRPA and are admissible
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings concerning omissions and inconsistencies
  3. 3 Whether delay in claiming protection undermines the appellants' fear

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the purported new evidence failed s.110(4) (it could reasonably have been presented to the RPD or concerned pre-existing events), the appellants' account contained material inconsistencies and unexplained omissions that destroyed credibility, and the delay in claiming protection undermined their asserted fear; accordingly there is no basis to find them refugees or persons in need of protection and no reason to refer for redetermination.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed