TB8-14047

TB8-14047

New evidence was inadmissible because it did not meet s.110(4) IRPA requirements and could have been presented earlier; the uncontested RPD findings and documentary deficiencies established the Appellant's overall lack of credibility on a balance of probabilities; consequently the RPD's rejection of the refugee claim is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TB8-14047
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; Decision Maker / Panel Member: James Sloan
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division (rad); Reasons and Decision Issued
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admission of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Convention Refugee Determination, Sur Place Claim, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admission of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Convention Refugee Determination Sur Place Claim 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Respondent / Minister

James Sloan

Decision Maker / Panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division (rad); Reasons and Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence meets the requirements of s.110(4) IRPA and RAD rules
  2. 2 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

New evidence was inadmissible because it did not meet s.110(4) IRPA requirements and could have been presented earlier; the uncontested RPD findings and documentary deficiencies established the Appellant's overall lack of credibility on a balance of probabilities; consequently the RPD's rejection of the refugee claim is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Request to admit new evidence denied
  • Request for hearing pursuant to subsection 110(6) IRPA denied