TB4-08327

TB4-08327

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the principal appellant's account lacked credible corroboration, the alleged 2012 incident and same‑sex partner were not proven, the purported new evidence was inadmissible or immaterial and did not warrant an oral hearing, and the appellant's re‑availment and delay in claiming protection demonstrated lack of subjective fear; accordingly the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB4-08327
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, New Evidence, Oral Hearing, Re‑availment, Corroboration, Membership Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility New Evidence Oral Hearing Re‑availment Corroboration +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Credibility of the principal appellant's account and existence of alleged same‑sex partner
  3. 3 Admissibility of purported new evidence and entitlement to an oral hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the principal appellant's account lacked credible corroboration, the alleged 2012 incident and same‑sex partner were not proven, the purported new evidence was inadmissible or immaterial and did not warrant an oral hearing, and the appellant's re‑availment and delay in claiming protection demonstrated lack of subjective fear; accordingly the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act