TB6-04205

TB6-04205

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the Appellants failed to show that their proposed new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and, even if admitted, the evidence lacked credibility and relevance; the record does not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or risk to life/torture, and the RPD's findings that the dispute arose from municipal enforcement rather than persecution were supported by the evidence.

Citation
TB6-04205
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant (husband): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (son): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence and Merits; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms the RPD decision under section 111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Standard of Review and Deference, Credibility Assessment, Property Dispute and Alleged Risk of Demolition, Best Interests of the Child
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Standard of Review and Deference Credibility Assessment Property Dispute and Alleged Risk of Demolition Best Interests of the Child

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant (husband)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence and Merits; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed new evidence met the requirements of section 110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility and documentary findings
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants established a well-founded fear of persecution or risk to life/cruel treatment in Saudi Arabia

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the Appellants failed to show that their proposed new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and, even if admitted, the evidence lacked credibility and relevance; the record does not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or risk to life/torture, and the RPD's findings that the dispute arose from municipal enforcement rather than persecution were supported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms the RPD decision under section 111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • The RAD confirms the RPD decision that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
  • All proposed new evidence was held inadmissible under section 110(4) IRPA; no oral hearing ordered