TB7-12200

TB7-12200

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings and independent analysis of country documentation showing insufficient objective evidence that villagers would punish a refuser of the alleged traditional role; proposed new evidence was not admitted under s.110 and did not warrant an oral hearing; accordingly the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB7-12200
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (decision Issued)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Documentary Evidence Admissibility, Convention Refugee Determination, New Evidence and Oral Hearing (s.110)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Documentary Evidence Admissibility Convention Refugee Determination New Evidence and Oral Hearing (s.110)

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant (spouse)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (decision Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants' allegations are supported by objective evidence
  2. 2 Whether appellants' claims are credible
  3. 3 Whether refusal to assume alleged traditional role (Chief Priest) would lead to community punishment

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings and independent analysis of country documentation showing insufficient objective evidence that villagers would punish a refuser of the alleged traditional role; proposed new evidence was not admitted under s.110 and did not warrant an oral hearing; accordingly the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision upheld that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
  • Proposed new documentary evidence rejected under s.110 and no oral hearing granted