MB9-12500

MB9-12500

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because the appellants failed to meet the evidentiary burden: the proposed new evidence did not satisfy subsection 110(4) and Raza requirements, the appellants' allegations were speculative and insufficiently corroborated, credibility and probative value were lacking, and there was no serious possibility of persecution nor a balance of probabilities risk under ss.96-97 of the Act.

Citation
MB9-12500
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (final)
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, Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Assessment +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether new evidence should be admitted under subsection 110(4) of the Act and Raza factors
  3. 3 Whether the appellants met the burden of proof to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk under ss.96-97 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because the appellants failed to meet the evidentiary burden: the proposed new evidence did not satisfy subsection 110(4) and Raza requirements, the appellants' allegations were speculative and insufficiently corroborated, credibility and probative value were lacking, and there was no serious possibility of persecution nor a balance of probabilities risk under ss.96-97 of the Act.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Request to admit new evidence denied