MB8-04121

MB8-04121

The RAD upheld the RPD's negative credibility finding because material contradictions between the claimant's written account and oral testimony were not satisfactorily explained, the fresh documents failed the newness/relevance/credibility test and did not alter the record, and the appellant's failure to seek protection in the United States was inconsistent with the asserted subjective fear; accordingly the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1) IRPA.

Citation
MB8-04121
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Failure to Seek Protection in First Country, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Failure to Seek Protection in First Country Convention Refugee Determination

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in its assessment of the appellants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether new evidence submitted to the RAD is admissible under RAD Rule 29 and s.110(4) IRPA (credibility, relevance, newness)
  3. 3 Whether the associate appellant faces a risk on return to his country of citizenship (United States)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD's negative credibility finding because material contradictions between the claimant's written account and oral testimony were not satisfactorily explained, the fresh documents failed the newness/relevance/credibility test and did not alter the record, and the appellant's failure to seek protection in the United States was inconsistent with the asserted subjective fear; accordingly the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; Refugee Protection Division determination that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to subsection 111(1) of the IRPA is affirmed