TB9-05492

TB9-05492

The cumulative and material inconsistencies and omissions in the appellants' evidence, together with the nondeterminative nature of the new photograph and medical report, render the appellants' account not sufficiently credible to establish a more than mere possibility of persecution under s.96 or the higher balance‑of‑probabilities standard under s.97; therefore the RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD decision.

Citation
TB9-05492
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division Resulting in RAD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, New Evidence Admission, RAD Procedure, Section 96, Section 97
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment New Evidence Admission RAD Procedure +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

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division Resulting in RAD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence submitted on appeal should be admitted
  2. 2 Whether the appellants established a well-founded fear of persecution (s.96)
  3. 3 Whether the appellants met the higher threshold for protection under s.97

Ratio Decidendi

The cumulative and material inconsistencies and omissions in the appellants' evidence, together with the nondeterminative nature of the new photograph and medical report, render the appellants' account not sufficiently credible to establish a more than mere possibility of persecution under s.96 or the higher balance‑of‑probabilities standard under s.97; therefore the RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD decision.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act