TB6-02717

TB6-02717

The RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD decision because the principal Appellant's testimony was found to be inconsistent, lacking in detail and insufficiently corroborated; the new evidence either did not meet s.110(4) IRPA or was not credible/relevant enough to alter the outcome; there was no breach of natural justice or improper application of Gender Guideline 4 that would vitiate the RPD's credibility findings; accordingly there is no serious possibility of persecution for domestic abuse or Roma ethnicity and the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB6-02717
Parties
Principal Appellant (mother): XXXX XXXX (principal Appellant); Minor Appellant (child): XXXX XXXX (minor Appellant)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (rad Dismissed Appeal on June 15, 2016)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Asylum, Persecution, Domestic Violence, Gender Based Persecution, Ethnic Discrimination (roma), Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Natural Justice and Fair Hearing, Exclusion (article 1 F), Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Asylum Persecution Domestic Violence Gender Based Persecution +5 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX (principal Appellant)

Principal Appellant (mother)

XXXX XXXX (minor Appellant)

Minor Appellant (child)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (rad Dismissed Appeal on June 15, 2016)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and is admissible on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the RPD breached natural justice or failed to apply Gender Guideline 4
  3. 3 Whether the principal Appellant and minor face a well-founded fear of persecution from domestic violence or Roma discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD decision because the principal Appellant's testimony was found to be inconsistent, lacking in detail and insufficiently corroborated; the new evidence either did not meet s.110(4) IRPA or was not credible/relevant enough to alter the outcome; there was no breach of natural justice or improper application of Gender Guideline 4 that would vitiate the RPD's credibility findings; accordingly there is no serious possibility of persecution for domestic abuse or Roma ethnicity and the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated February 4, 2016 is confirmed and appeal dismissed
  • No oral hearing ordered and matter is not referred back to the RPD