TB5-03677

TB5-03677

RAD admitted post‑decision documentary evidence but, after independent review, found the RPD correctly applied the Gender Guidelines, considered psychological reports, and reasonably concluded credibility inconsistencies and lack of a personalized risk under s.97 meant the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, and therefore confirmed the RPD decision under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB5-03677
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; RAD Decision Rendered August 18, 2015
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Findings, Gender Guidelines, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Section 97 Risk (generalized Vs Personalized), Standard of Review / RAD Appellate Scope
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Findings Gender Guidelines Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) +2 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; RAD Decision Rendered August 18, 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RPD properly applied the Gender Guidelines
  2. 2 Whether RPD considered and gave weight to psychological reports
  3. 3 Whether RPD ignored counsel's submissions

Ratio Decidendi

RAD admitted post‑decision documentary evidence but, after independent review, found the RPD correctly applied the Gender Guidelines, considered psychological reports, and reasonably concluded credibility inconsistencies and lack of a personalized risk under s.97 meant the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, and therefore confirmed the RPD decision under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated March 27, 2015 confirmed