TC0-10676

TC0-10676

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD reasonably concluded three corroborating affidavits were non‑genuine due to inconsistent Oaths Law citations and related unexplained irregularities, numerous material inconsistencies and omissions in the appellants' evidence undermined credibility, the proffered new affidavit did not meet the statutory test in s.110(4) IRPA and would not have been determinative, and therefore no oral hearing was required under s.110(6).

Citation
TC0-10676
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Document Authenticity
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in making adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit submitted as new evidence meets the requirements of s.110(4) IRPA and is admissible
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing is required under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD reasonably concluded three corroborating affidavits were non‑genuine due to inconsistent Oaths Law citations and related unexplained irregularities, numerous material inconsistencies and omissions in the appellants' evidence undermined credibility, the proffered new affidavit did not meet the statutory test in s.110(4) IRPA and would not have been determinative, and therefore no oral hearing was required under s.110(6).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed