TC0-05903

TC0-05903

Even accepting some RPD errors (failure to consider certain testimony and social media explanations), the appellant failed on the balance of probabilities to demonstrate a forward-looking risk of persecution or risk of harm in Uganda because there is no evidence of continued contact, threats, monitoring or consequences for failing to send money or pursue the alleged false claim; the NDP is considered but the LinkedIn/social media evidence was not admissible as new, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TC0-05903
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Forward Looking Risk, Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Findings, Gender Guidelines, Program Integrity, Social Media Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Forward Looking Risk Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Findings +3 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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister of Immigration

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether alleged new evidence is admissible on RAD appeal under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether RPD erred in credibility findings and in weighing social media evidence
  3. 3 Whether the appellant established a forward-looking risk of persecution or risk of harm on return to Uganda under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

Even accepting some RPD errors (failure to consider certain testimony and social media explanations), the appellant failed on the balance of probabilities to demonstrate a forward-looking risk of persecution or risk of harm in Uganda because there is no evidence of continued contact, threats, monitoring or consequences for failing to send money or pursue the alleged false claim; the NDP is considered but the LinkedIn/social media evidence was not admissible as new, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
  • No new evidence admitted on appeal; no oral hearing permitted