MB8-25722

MB8-25722

The appellants' claims fail because the principal appellant was found not credible based on significant unexplained contradictions and omissions in her testimony and account; the purported new evidence is inadmissible and contrary to prior statements; corroborative documents do not substantiate the allegations; the minor children did not establish risk in the United States. Consequently the RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD's decision.

Citation
MB8-25722
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (husband): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (child): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Reasons and Decision on Appeal (rad Reviewed RPD Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Convention Refugee Determination, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Convention Refugee Determination Standard of Review

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (husband)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (child)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Reasons and Decision on Appeal (rad Reviewed RPD Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the principal appellant
  2. 2 Whether the excerpt from the Peace Court minutes is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA as new evidence
  3. 3 Whether the minor children (U.S. citizens) established a risk arising in the United States

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants' claims fail because the principal appellant was found not credible based on significant unexplained contradictions and omissions in her testimony and account; the purported new evidence is inadmissible and contrary to prior statements; corroborative documents do not substantiate the allegations; the minor children did not establish risk in the United States. Consequently the RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD's decision.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • New evidence (Peace Court excerpt) excluded as inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA; no oral hearing on that evidence