TB9-04642

TB9-04642

The appellant's materially inconsistent testimony about whether he was accompanied by relatives from Norway when stopped undermined the presumption of truthfulness on the core events; the three proffered documents fail the s.110(4) and Raza/Singh tests and are inadmissible; objective country evidence indicates only a minimal risk on return; therefore there is insufficient credible evidence of persecution or s.97(1) risk and the RAD confirms the RPD decision dismissing the claim.

Citation
TB9-04642
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Admissibility of New Evidence, Risk of Persecution, RAD Oral Hearing Criteria, Statutory Interpretation of IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Admissibility of New Evidence Risk of Persecution RAD Oral Hearing Criteria Statutory Interpretation of IRPA

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 7 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister (Canada)

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was credible on material aspects of his claim
  2. 2 Whether three items of post‑RPD evidence meet the s.110(4) test and Raza/Singh factors
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing is required under s.110(6)

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's materially inconsistent testimony about whether he was accompanied by relatives from Norway when stopped undermined the presumption of truthfulness on the core events; the three proffered documents fail the s.110(4) and Raza/Singh tests and are inadmissible; objective country evidence indicates only a minimal risk on return; therefore there is insufficient credible evidence of persecution or s.97(1) risk and the RAD confirms the RPD decision dismissing the claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • New evidence (cousin letter, brother‑in‑law letter, appellant affidavit) not admitted under s.110(4) and Raza/Singh criteria
  • No oral hearing granted under s.110(6) (no admissible new evidence)