TB9-16417

TB9-16417

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the proposed new article dated after the RPD decision did not materially pertain to the Appellants' allegations and therefore was not admitted under s.110(4); the RPD's adverse credibility findings (inconsistencies about interactions with alleged persecutors, failure to notify family, absence of supporting documents) were unchallenged and supported by the record and audio transcript; the Appellants' RAD submissions were vague and non‑compliant with RAD Rule 3(3)(g); accordingly the RAD confirmed the RPD decision and dismissed the Principal Appellant's appeal; the Co-Appellant withdrew.

Citation
TB9-16417
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence and Merits of Appeal (rad Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as to Principal Appellant; RPD determination confirmed; Co-Appellant's appeal withdrawn.
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Admissibility of New Evidence Under S.110(4), Withdrawal of Appeal, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Admissibility of New Evidence Under S.110(4) Withdrawal of Appeal Standard of Review

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

Co Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence and Merits of Appeal (rad Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new evidence meets subsection 110(4) test and should be admitted
  2. 2 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in its adverse credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether a hearing should be granted on the basis of the new evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the proposed new article dated after the RPD decision did not materially pertain to the Appellants' allegations and therefore was not admitted under s.110(4); the RPD's adverse credibility findings (inconsistencies about interactions with alleged persecutors, failure to notify family, absence of supporting documents) were unchallenged and supported by the record and audio transcript; the Appellants' RAD submissions were vague and non‑compliant with RAD Rule 3(3)(g); accordingly the RAD confirmed the RPD decision and dismissed the Principal Appellant's appeal; the Co-Appellant withdrew.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as to Principal Appellant; RPD determination confirmed; Co-Appellant's appeal withdrawn.

Orders

  • Refugee Appeal Division confirms Refugee Protection Division's determination that Principal Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
  • Principal Appellant's appeal is dismissed.