TB8-20806

TB8-20806

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD was correct to reject the appellants' claim on credibility grounds: the Principal Appellant's affidavit constituted inadmissible new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and contradicted her earlier testimony; the supporting documents did not corroborate that the alleged persecutor caused the injuries; and the appellants' repeated travel to Canada and failure to claim asylum at the first opportunity were incompatible with genuine fear of persecution, such that there is no serious possibility of Convention‑based persecution or risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment on return to Russia.

Citation
TB8-20806
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal: Arthur I Yallen; Counsel for the Minister: N/A; Presiding Panel Member/decision‑maker: Jillan Sadek
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Admission of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Failure to Claim Asylum at First Opportunity, Corroboration of Supporting Documents, Standard of Review (correctness Vs Deference), Gender‑based Persecution Guidance
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Findings Admission of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Failure to Claim Asylum at First Opportunity Corroboration of Supporting Documents +2 more

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 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Arthur I Yallen

Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Jillan Sadek

Presiding Panel Member/decision‑maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence (affidavit) met s.110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza tests and could be admitted
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings regarding the Principal Appellant
  3. 3 Whether supporting documents corroborated allegations of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD was correct to reject the appellants' claim on credibility grounds: the Principal Appellant's affidavit constituted inadmissible new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and contradicted her earlier testimony; the supporting documents did not corroborate that the alleged persecutor caused the injuries; and the appellants' repeated travel to Canada and failure to claim asylum at the first opportunity were incompatible with genuine fear of persecution, such that there is no serious possibility of Convention‑based persecution or risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment on return to Russia.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • The Refugee Appeal Division dismisses the appeal and confirms the RPD decision that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act