TB6-09595

TB6-09595

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellants failed to establish their identity and the proposed new evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA (or, even if admitted, would not establish identity), therefore the RPD's negative refugee determination is upheld.

Citation
TB6-09595
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / RAD Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence and Confirmation of RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection (s.111(1)(a) IRPA)
Legal Topics
Admissibility of New Evidence, Identity Verification, Credibility Assessment, Gender Guidelines, Standard of Review, Oral Hearing Request
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Admissibility of New Evidence Identity Verification Credibility Assessment Gender Guidelines Standard of Review +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellants

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Counsel for Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / RAD Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence and Confirmation of RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and is admissible on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants established identity sufficient for refugee protection
  3. 3 Appropriate standard of review and degree of deference owed by RAD to RPD credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellants failed to establish their identity and the proposed new evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA (or, even if admitted, would not establish identity), therefore the RPD's negative refugee determination is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection (s.111(1)(a) IRPA)

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed and RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
  • Proposed new evidence not admitted pursuant to s.110(4) IRPA