TC1-01181

TC1-01181

The appeal is dismissed because the new documents were not admissible (they predated the RPD decision and were reasonably available), the RPD's negative credibility findings were justified by material inconsistencies and lack of credible corroboration (including inauthentic police complaints and contradictory testimony), and the US‑born minor lacked a protection claim against the United States so RAD could not grant asylum; consequently the Appellants failed to establish risk under IRPA ss.96 and 97.

Citation
TC1-01181
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Admission of New Evidence, IRPA Ss.96 97 Jurisdictional Issues
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Admission 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of post‑decision/new evidence
  2. 2 Credibility of appellants' testimony
  3. 3 Authenticity of alleged police complaint documents

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the new documents were not admissible (they predated the RPD decision and were reasonably available), the RPD's negative credibility findings were justified by material inconsistencies and lack of credible corroboration (including inauthentic police complaints and contradictory testimony), and the US‑born minor lacked a protection claim against the United States so RAD could not grant asylum; consequently the Appellants failed to establish risk under IRPA ss.96 and 97.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed