TB8-07539

TB8-07539

Most proffered new evidence was either available before the RPD or added no new information and was therefore not admitted or given weight; the Co‑Appellant was found not credible on the kidnapping allegation; even accepting the Principal Appellant's account, RAD is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a viable internal flight alternative exists in Chittagong; accordingly the appellants are not Convention refugees and the RAD confirms the RPD decision under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB8-07539
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision of RAD (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms the RPD determination that the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Admissibility of New Evidence Under S.110(4) IRPA, Standard of Review, Burden of Proof, Documentary Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Credibility Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Admissibility of New Evidence Under S.110(4) IRPA Standard of Review +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision of RAD (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of new evidence under subsection 110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Credibility of the Principal Appellant and Co-Appellant
  3. 3 Existence and viability of an internal flight alternative (Chittagong)

Ratio Decidendi

Most proffered new evidence was either available before the RPD or added no new information and was therefore not admitted or given weight; the Co‑Appellant was found not credible on the kidnapping allegation; even accepting the Principal Appellant's account, RAD is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a viable internal flight alternative exists in Chittagong; accordingly the appellants are not Convention refugees and the RAD confirms the RPD decision under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA, the RAD confirms the RPD determination that the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection; appeal dismissed.
  • Proffered new evidence largely refused as inadmissible or given no evidentiary weight