MB9-03464

MB9-03464

The RAD confirmed the RPD's rejection of the refugee claims because on independent review the principal Appellant's account was not credible: material omissions and contradictions about the family dispute (including failure to disclose alleged killing of her father and being expelled from the family home), evasive and unconvincing testimony about the existence and operation of her school, failure to reasonably explain not seeking asylum in the United States, and unreliable supporting documents; the new affidavits submitted on appeal did not meet s.110(4) IRPA and Raza/Singh criteria and thus were inadmissible, so there was no serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or risk under...

Citation
MB9-03464
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor Children): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor US Citizen): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence S.110(4) IRPA, State Protection, Sur Place Claims, Weight of Documentary Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence S.110(4) IRPA State Protection Sur Place Claims Weight of Documentary Evidence

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor Children)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor US Citizen)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the Appellants not credible
  2. 2 Whether affidavits submitted on appeal met s.110(4) IRPA and Raza/Singh new evidence test
  3. 3 Whether failure to claim asylum in the United States undermines subjective fear

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's rejection of the refugee claims because on independent review the principal Appellant's account was not credible: material omissions and contradictions about the family dispute (including failure to disclose alleged killing of her father and being expelled from the family home), evasive and unconvincing testimony about the existence and operation of her school, failure to reasonably explain not seeking asylum in the United States, and unreliable supporting documents; the new affidavits submitted on appeal did not meet s.110(4) IRPA and Raza/Singh criteria and thus were inadmissible, so there was no serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or risk under...

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated February 20, 2019 confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA