TB7-05169

TB7-05169

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the proposed new evidence did not satisfy s.110(4); the interpreter complaint was not raised at first opportunity and did not justify relief; material contradictions in the Principal Appellant's evidence (Muslim Brotherhood v. Daesh) and the absence of corroboration together with an unexplained delay in filing the claim destroyed credibility and subjective fear; accordingly the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB7-05169
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision Rendered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, Delay in Claiming, Interpretation at Hearing, New Evidence, Corroboration, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Delay in Claiming Interpretation at Hearing New Evidence Corroboration +2 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and warranted a rehearing
  2. 2 Whether interpretation at RPD was adequate and whether failure to object waived the complaint
  3. 3 Whether contradictions in appellant's testimony fatally undermined credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: the proposed new evidence did not satisfy s.110(4); the interpreter complaint was not raised at first opportunity and did not justify relief; material contradictions in the Principal Appellant's evidence (Muslim Brotherhood v. Daesh) and the absence of corroboration together with an unexplained delay in filing the claim destroyed credibility and subjective fear; accordingly the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated February 20, 2017 confirmed