TC2-19589

TC2-19589

The RAD admitted the new evidence but found it did not raise a serious issue sufficient to overturn the RPD's adverse credibility findings; material inconsistencies and unexplained omissions (conviction omitted from BOC and Schedule 12, lack of reasonably available corroboration, implausible explanations for missing Facebook evidence and deleted emails) left the Appellants' claim lacking overall credibility and insufficient to establish a serious possibility of persecution, therefore the appeal is dismissed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TC2-19589
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal: Barkat Masih Gill; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Appeal Decision Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Credibility, Admission of New Evidence, Country Condition Evidence, Delay in Filing
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Credibility Admission of New Evidence Country Condition Evidence Delay in Filing

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Barkat Masih Gill

Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Appeal Decision Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence should be admitted on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in adverse credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution or other harm on return

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD admitted the new evidence but found it did not raise a serious issue sufficient to overturn the RPD's adverse credibility findings; material inconsistencies and unexplained omissions (conviction omitted from BOC and Schedule 12, lack of reasonably available corroboration, implausible explanations for missing Facebook evidence and deleted emails) left the Appellants' claim lacking overall credibility and insufficient to establish a serious possibility of persecution, therefore the appeal is dismissed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA

Orders

  • New evidence admitted on appeal but request for hearing under s.110(6) IRPA denied
  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision upheld; no referral under s.111(1)(b) or (c)