MC2-04596

MC2-04596

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the documents submitted on appeal were inadmissible under subsection 110(4) IRPA or lacked credibility and probative value, and because the RPD did not err in concluding the appellants failed to establish their identity on a balance of probabilities; therefore no oral hearing was required under s.110(6) and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Citation
MC2-04596
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Co Appellant / Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant / Child: XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Intervenor: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision on Appeal / Reasons and Decision (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Identity Determination, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Oral Hearing Discretion (s.110(6) Irpa), Credibility Assessment, Legal Representation / Alleged Negligence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Evidence Identity Determination Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Oral Hearing Discretion (s.110(6) Irpa) Credibility Assessment +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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant / Spouse

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant / Child

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent / Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision on Appeal / Reasons and Decision (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents submitted on appeal are admissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether an oral hearing should be held under s.110(6) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellants did not establish identity

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the documents submitted on appeal were inadmissible under subsection 110(4) IRPA or lacked credibility and probative value, and because the RPD did not err in concluding the appellants failed to establish their identity on a balance of probabilities; therefore no oral hearing was required under s.110(6) and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Refugee Protection Division decision of March 8, 2022 is confirmed.