TC1-19957

TC1-19957

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD properly found the appellants not credible: the PA voluntarily re‑availed himself to Sri Lanka on two occasions and delayed leaving after the 2018 incident, and he failed to seek asylum during two significant stays in the United States; these facts undermine any asserted subjective fear, the proffered new evidence was not relevant under s.110(4) IRPA, and the appellants therefore do not meet the definitions of Convention refugee or person in need of protection; no separate s.97 analysis was required given identical allegations and the credibility determination.

Citation
TC1-19957
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Final Decision Reasons for Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, Re Availment to Country of Origin, Failure to Claim Asylum in Third Country, Delay in Leaving Country, New Evidence Under S.110(4) IRPA, Section 97 Analysis, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Re Availment to Country of Origin Failure to Claim Asylum in Third Country Delay in Leaving Country New Evidence Under S.110(4) IRPA +3 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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Final Decision Reasons for Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are credible
  2. 2 Re-availment to Sri Lanka and impact on subjective fear
  3. 3 Delay in leaving Sri Lanka after alleged persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD properly found the appellants not credible: the PA voluntarily re‑availed himself to Sri Lanka on two occasions and delayed leaving after the 2018 incident, and he failed to seek asylum during two significant stays in the United States; these facts undermine any asserted subjective fear, the proffered new evidence was not relevant under s.110(4) IRPA, and the appellants therefore do not meet the definitions of Convention refugee or person in need of protection; no separate s.97 analysis was required given identical allegations and the credibility determination.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision dated November 2, 2021 confirmed
  • Proffered new evidence rejected as not relevant under s.110(4) IRPA