TB7-05087

TB7-05087

The RAD upheld the RPD's negative decision because the cumulative, material inconsistencies (notably omission of alleged physical abuse from the original BOC, omissions in the Mother's PIF and grandmother's affidavit, and documentary contradictions) justified an adverse credibility finding; the psychological report did not establish that the Principal Appellant was unfit to testify or cure the discrepancies; the mother's affidavit did not meet s.110(4) IRPA and was excluded; no basis for an oral hearing under s.110(6); therefore Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Citation
TB7-05087
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Secondary Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Reasons and Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Oral Hearing (s.110(6) Irpa), Child Refugee Claimants, Psychological Evidence, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Oral Hearing (s.110(6) Irpa) Child Refugee Claimants Psychological Evidence +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Secondary Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Reasons and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of the Appellants and weight of inconsistencies between BOC and amended BOC
  2. 2 Whether psychological report excused inconsistencies or rendered appellant unfit to testify
  3. 3 Admissibility of mother's affidavit as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and application of adapted Raza/Singh factors

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD's negative decision because the cumulative, material inconsistencies (notably omission of alleged physical abuse from the original BOC, omissions in the Mother's PIF and grandmother's affidavit, and documentary contradictions) justified an adverse credibility finding; the psychological report did not establish that the Principal Appellant was unfit to testify or cure the discrepancies; the mother's affidavit did not meet s.110(4) IRPA and was excluded; no basis for an oral hearing under s.110(6); therefore Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Affirmed: appeal dismissed and RPD decision upheld
  • Affidavit from Mother rejected as not admissible under s.110(4) IRPA