TB7-18191

TB7-18191

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to meet their burden of proof: the proposed medical evidence was not new or sufficiently probative, credibility findings were supported by inconsistencies in testimony and documents and by an unexplained delay that undermined subjective fear, and therefore the appellants did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or need for protection.

Citation
TB7-18191
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal; Confirmation of RPD Negative Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Subjective Fear and Delay, Weight of Documentary and Medical Evidence, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Subjective Fear and Delay Weight of Documentary and Medical Evidence Convention Refugee Determination

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal; Confirmation of RPD Negative Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RAD should admit new medical evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether the appellants demonstrated subjective fear given delay in leaving Nigeria

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants failed to meet their burden of proof: the proposed medical evidence was not new or sufficiently probative, credibility findings were supported by inconsistencies in testimony and documents and by an unexplained delay that undermined subjective fear, and therefore the appellants did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or need for protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act the RAD confirms the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection