TB6-09236

TB6-09236

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to show the proposed documents met s.110(4) IRPA (timing and availability unexplained), the documents lacked credibility and appeared forged, and the appellants' testimony was generally not credible; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB6-09236
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (daughter): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence and Merits of Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Credibility Findings, Standard of Review and Deference to RPD, Request for Oral Hearing (s.110(6) Irpa), Forgery and Document Authenticity
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Credibility Findings Standard of Review and Deference to RPD Request for Oral Hearing (s.110(6) Irpa) Forgery and Document Authenticity

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence and Merits of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new evidence meets the disjunctive test in s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the new evidence is credible and relevant
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing should be ordered under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to show the proposed documents met s.110(4) IRPA (timing and availability unexplained), the documents lacked credibility and appeared forged, and the appellants' testimony was generally not credible; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA the RAD confirms the RPD decision and dismisses these appeals.
  • Request for an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA denied due to absence of admissible new evidence.