MB9-02109

MB9-02109

The RPD's adverse credibility finding was upheld as reasonable and correct: the police report was found to be fraudulent on its face (letterhead misspelling, incomplete complaint number, and seal issues), the appellants' explanations for delay and for not claiming in the US were not credible, the proposed new evidence lacked sufficient probative value or relevance under s.110(4) and Rule 29, no threshold for an oral hearing was met, and therefore the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA and the appeals are dismissed.

Citation
MB9-02109
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spousal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; First Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Second Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Rule 29 Applications, Standard of Review/correctness Vs Reasonableness, Oral Hearing Threshold (s.110(6) Irpa), Less Complex Claims Process
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Rule 29 Applications Standard of Review/correctness Vs Reasonableness Oral Hearing Threshold (s.110(6) Irpa) +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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spousal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

First Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Second Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the Principal Appellant not credible
  2. 2 Whether the police report submitted was genuine or fraudulent
  3. 3 Whether proposed new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA or is admissible under Rule 29

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's adverse credibility finding was upheld as reasonable and correct: the police report was found to be fraudulent on its face (letterhead misspelling, incomplete complaint number, and seal issues), the appellants' explanations for delay and for not claiming in the US were not credible, the proposed new evidence lacked sufficient probative value or relevance under s.110(4) and Rule 29, no threshold for an oral hearing was met, and therefore the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA and the appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA