MC0-09509

MC0-09509

On the balance of probabilities the appellants failed to establish their identities because the record contains major contradictions, multiple irregularities and apparent fraudulent documents, the DRC documents lacked probative security features, the appellants failed to justify why the purported new evidence was not presented to the RPD under s.110(4) IRPA, and consequently the RPD correctly rejected their claims and the RAD must confirm that decision.

Citation
MC0-09509
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Associate: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Identity Verification, Document Authenticity and Fraud, Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal, Credibility Assessment, Ministerial Intervention
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Identity Verification Document Authenticity and Fraud Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal Credibility Assessment Ministerial Intervention

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Associate

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants established their identities as required by s.106 IRPA and RPD Rule 11
  2. 2 Whether the RAD should admit new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD properly drew adverse credibility inferences from allegedly fraudulent or inconsistent documents

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the appellants failed to establish their identities because the record contains major contradictions, multiple irregularities and apparent fraudulent documents, the DRC documents lacked probative security features, the appellants failed to justify why the purported new evidence was not presented to the RPD under s.110(4) IRPA, and consequently the RPD correctly rejected their claims and the RAD must confirm that decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • New evidence (certificate of nationality dated March 2020 and historical school report cards) rejected as inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  • No oral hearing granted before the RAD