TB5-08091

TB5-08091

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the appellants failed to comply with RAD Rules and did not establish admissibility of proposed new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA; even if considered, the proffered documents lacked credibility, relevance or materiality and did not cure the RPD's reasonable credibility findings (including failure to seek protection elsewhere, inconsistencies about blogging and the kidnapping, and lack of demonstrable profile); accordingly the RPD's determination that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection was supported by the record and must be upheld.

Citation
TB5-08091
Parties
Appellant (principal): Principal Appellant - name redacted; Appellant (associated): Associated Appellant (wife) - name redacted; Appellant (minor): Minor Appellant (son) - name redacted; Respondent (intervenor): Minister (Government of Canada) - intervenor
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision, Disposition by RAD Confirming RPD
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; Refugee Appeal Division confirms Refugee Protection Division decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Credibility Findings, State Protection, Standard of Review/deference to RPD, Convention Refugee Determination, Persons in Need of Protection, Procedural Compliance With RAD Rules, Materiality and Relevance of Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Credibility Findings State Protection Standard of Review/deference to RPD Convention Refugee Determination +3 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant - name redacted

Appellant (principal)

Associated Appellant (wife) - name redacted

Appellant (associated)

Minor Appellant (son) - name redacted

Appellant (minor)

Minister (Government of Canada) - intervenor

Respondent (intervenor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision, Disposition by RAD Confirming RPD

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents submitted on appeal meet s.110(4) IRPA and RAD Rules and are admissible as new evidence
  2. 2 Whether RPD credibility findings were reasonable and warrant deference
  3. 3 Whether appellants rebutted presumption of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the appellants failed to comply with RAD Rules and did not establish admissibility of proposed new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA; even if considered, the proffered documents lacked credibility, relevance or materiality and did not cure the RPD's reasonable credibility findings (including failure to seek protection elsewhere, inconsistencies about blogging and the kidnapping, and lack of demonstrable profile); accordingly the RPD's determination that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection was supported by the record and must be upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; Refugee Appeal Division confirms Refugee Protection Division decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
  • None of the proposed new evidence is admitted on appeal