TB8-01753

TB8-01753

The RAD admitted the post‑decision evidence but found the brother's affidavit and medical report unreliable or fraudulent and the Principal Appellant's testimony contained central inconsistencies and vagueness; coupled with limited past attacks, long gaps and lack of direct targeting, the appellants failed to prove on the required standard a serious possibility of persecution or need for protection, so the RPD decision is confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Citation
TB8-01753
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Immigration and Refugee Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision; Oral Hearing on New Evidence Before RAD
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Refugee Claim, Forced Marriage, Persecution Risk Assessment, Credibility Findings, Admissibility of New Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Claim Forced Marriage Persecution Risk Assessment Credibility Findings Admissibility of New Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Immigration and Refugee Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision; Oral Hearing on New Evidence Before RAD

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence of a 2017 attack establishes nexus to alleged persecutor
  2. 2 Whether the Principal Appellant's inconsistent statements undermine credibility
  3. 3 Whether the past incidents and gaps meet the forward‑looking threshold of a serious possibility of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD admitted the post‑decision evidence but found the brother's affidavit and medical report unreliable or fraudulent and the Principal Appellant's testimony contained central inconsistencies and vagueness; coupled with limited past attacks, long gaps and lack of direct targeting, the appellants failed to prove on the required standard a serious possibility of persecution or need for protection, so the RPD decision is confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed