TB8-32581

TB8-32581

The Appellants' claim was rejected because, on a balance of probabilities, the RAD concurred with key RPD credibility findings and identified additional credibility defects: unexplained delay, inconsistencies in testimony about who was at risk, absence of corroborating bank records, and fraudulent or irregular affidavits; the challenged new evidence was inadmissible or not credible and did not raise a serious possibility of persecution, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed.

Citation
TB8-32581
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (principal appellant); Appellants Minors: Minor Appellants (three sons of principal appellant); Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision; Review of Credibility and Admissibility of New Evidence; RAD Decision on September 11, 2019
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Convention Refugee Determination, Protection Claims, Affidavit Authenticity
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Convention Refugee Determination Protection Claims +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (principal appellant)

Appellant Principal

Minor Appellants (three sons of principal appellant)

Appellants Minors

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister (Canada)

Respondent Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision; Review of Credibility and Admissibility of New Evidence; RAD Decision on September 11, 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Appellants qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants' evidence and testimony are credible
  3. 3 Whether new evidence meets IRPA s.110(4) and Singh criteria for admission

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellants' claim was rejected because, on a balance of probabilities, the RAD concurred with key RPD credibility findings and identified additional credibility defects: unexplained delay, inconsistencies in testimony about who was at risk, absence of corroborating bank records, and fraudulent or irregular affidavits; the challenged new evidence was inadmissible or not credible and did not raise a serious possibility of persecution, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Photographs inadmissible as new evidence
  • Affidavits from principal appellant's brother and husband found inadmissible/fraudulent and excluded