TC0-09562

TC0-09562

The RAD confirmed the RPD's central adverse credibility findings, concluded key documents (police invitation letters, arrest warrant, newspaper article) were fraudulent, found the proffered evidence not new or not reasonably unavailable under s.110(4) IRPA and therefore inadmissible, and on balance of probabilities the alleged raid and arrest did not occur; accordingly neither Appellant established a serious possibility of persecution or section 97(1) risk and the appeals were dismissed.

Citation
TC0-09562
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX); Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Admissibility of New Evidence, Convention Refugee Determination, Risk of Persecution, Female Genital Mutilation Risk
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Child Protection (fgm Risk) Credibility Findings Admissibility of New Evidence Convention Refugee Determination Risk of Persecution +1 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and is admissible on appeal
  2. 2 Whether RPD credibility findings were reasonable and determinative
  3. 3 Whether Appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's central adverse credibility findings, concluded key documents (police invitation letters, arrest warrant, newspaper article) were fraudulent, found the proffered evidence not new or not reasonably unavailable under s.110(4) IRPA and therefore inadmissible, and on balance of probabilities the alleged raid and arrest did not occur; accordingly neither Appellant established a serious possibility of persecution or section 97(1) risk and the appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • No new evidence admitted under s.110(4) IRPA