MB3-04916

MB3-04916

The RAD, applying its independent appellate role but deferring to the RPD on credibility findings based on hearing advantage, rejected the appellants' allegations of Taliban extortion as not credible and found no serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture/killings by police; the new psychological and some country evidence were either not central or post‑dating the RPD but did not overcome core credibility defects, and the request for an oral hearing was denied; accordingly the RAD confirmed the RPD decision under s.111(1)(a) IRPA and dismissed the appeal.

Citation
MB3-04916
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant (son, Minor, Age 10): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (son, Age 20): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Redetermination Following Federal Court Remittal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Country Conditions, Standard of Appellate Review, Risk of Persecution, Requests for Oral Hearing
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Country Conditions Standard of Appellate Review Risk of Persecution +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (son, Minor, Age 10)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (son, Age 20)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Redetermination Following Federal Court Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants were credible as victims of Taliban extortion and therefore Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether new evidence submitted on appeal is admissible and central to the claim
  3. 3 Whether appellants face a risk from Pakistani police or Taliban if returned

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD, applying its independent appellate role but deferring to the RPD on credibility findings based on hearing advantage, rejected the appellants' allegations of Taliban extortion as not credible and found no serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture/killings by police; the new psychological and some country evidence were either not central or post‑dating the RPD but did not overcome core credibility defects, and the request for an oral hearing was denied; accordingly the RAD confirmed the RPD decision under s.111(1)(a) IRPA and dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • The determination of the Refugee Protection Division that the appellants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA is confirmed.
  • Request for an oral hearing on appeal is denied.