TB6-07231

TB6-07231

The RAD upheld the RPD because, although it admitted evidence of interpreter errors, those errors were not determinative; independent, grave credibility and plausibility defects (contradictory testimony about PSB visits, implausible accounts of finances, lack of documentary proof of political activity) remain and, on the balance of probabilities, the Appellants failed to establish they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection, so the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TB6-07231
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX (principal Appellant); Co‑appellant: XXXX XXXX (husband)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal RAD Review of RPD Decision / Appeal Decision (disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, Interpretation/translation, Admissibility of Evidence (s.110(4)), Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review/role of RAD
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Interpretation/translation Admissibility of Evidence (s.110(4)) Procedural Fairness Standard of Review/role of RAD

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX (principal Appellant)

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX (husband)

Co‑appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal RAD Review of RPD Decision / Appeal Decision (disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interpretation errors at the RPD hearing breached procedural fairness and undermine credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the RPD's negative credibility findings were justified and determinative
  3. 3 Whether proposed new evidence meets the s.110(4) test for admission on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD because, although it admitted evidence of interpreter errors, those errors were not determinative; independent, grave credibility and plausibility defects (contradictory testimony about PSB visits, implausible accounts of finances, lack of documentary proof of political activity) remain and, on the balance of probabilities, the Appellants failed to establish they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection, so the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

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