TC0-08985

TC0-08985

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were correct: multiple significant inconsistencies and lack of reasonable explanations gravely impugned the appellants' testimony and documentary evidence; the proposed new evidence failed the statutory test and was inadmissible; consequently there was insufficient credible evidence of a real risk of persecution or section 97 harm, and no oral hearing was warranted.

Citation
TC0-08985
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Male Appellant #1: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Male Appellant #2: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (final Adjudication)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110 Irpa), Re‑availment/re‑entry, Gender and Child Claimant Guidelines, Standard of Review/correctness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110 Irpa) Re‑availment/re‑entry Gender and Child Claimant Guidelines Standard of Review/correctness

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Male Appellant #1

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Male Appellant #2

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (final Adjudication)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing credibility of appellants
  2. 2 Whether proposed new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and was admissible
  3. 3 Whether Gender and Child Guidelines required a different assessment of risk or re‑availment

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were correct: multiple significant inconsistencies and lack of reasonable explanations gravely impugned the appellants' testimony and documentary evidence; the proposed new evidence failed the statutory test and was inadmissible; consequently there was insufficient credible evidence of a real risk of persecution or section 97 harm, and no oral hearing was warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the RPD confirmed