TB9-05782

TB9-05782

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings because the Principal Appellant omitted a material fact (ongoing threat), had significant inconsistencies with witness evidence, and produced Ethiopian documents with indicators of unreliability; the psychotherapist report failed s.110(4) as it was available or the condition pre‑existed and even if admitted would not overcome credibility findings; no oral hearing was warranted; therefore the RPD decision was confirmed and the appeals dismissed under s.111(1)(a).

Citation
TB9-05782
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Psychological Evidence, Documentary Evidence Authenticity, Oral Hearing on Appeal
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Psychological Evidence Documentary Evidence Authenticity Oral Hearing on Appeal

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of the Principal Appellant
  2. 2 Admissibility of psychotherapist report as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Consideration of mental health when assessing testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings because the Principal Appellant omitted a material fact (ongoing threat), had significant inconsistencies with witness evidence, and produced Ethiopian documents with indicators of unreliability; the psychotherapist report failed s.110(4) as it was available or the condition pre‑existed and even if admitted would not overcome credibility findings; no oral hearing was warranted; therefore the RPD decision was confirmed and the appeals dismissed under s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Psychotherapist report rejected as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  • No oral hearing granted under s.110(6) IRPA