MC1-09242

MC1-09242

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD concluded the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified based on inconsistencies, omissions and suspicious circumstances in the appellants' testimony and supporting affidavits; the newly proffered affidavits were inadmissible for credibility reasons, the admitted newspaper articles were general country‑condition evidence only and not material to these appellants, and there was no independent credible documentary evidence to overcome the credibility findings or to require a separate or favorable subsection 97(1) disposition.

Citation
MC1-09242
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Reasons for Decision (judicial Review of RPD Credibility Findings)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admission of New Evidence, Section 97(1) Protection Analysis, Oral Hearing Discretion, Documentary Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admission of New Evidence Section 97(1) Protection Analysis Oral Hearing Discretion Documentary Corroboration

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Reasons for Decision (judicial Review of RPD Credibility Findings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the RAD should admit the proffered new affidavits and news articles
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing was required under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD concluded the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified based on inconsistencies, omissions and suspicious circumstances in the appellants' testimony and supporting affidavits; the newly proffered affidavits were inadmissible for credibility reasons, the admitted newspaper articles were general country‑condition evidence only and not material to these appellants, and there was no independent credible documentary evidence to overcome the credibility findings or to require a separate or favorable subsection 97(1) disposition.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Refugee Protection Division confirmed