TB4-01596

TB4-01596

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because the RPD's adverse credibility findings and related factual conclusions were reasonable, the proffered medical letters and affidavit did not meet IRPA s.110(4) for new evidence and were therefore inadmissible, the documentary evidence was not sufficiently probative, and no basis existed to order an oral hearing; accordingly the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeals are dismissed.

Citation
TB4-01596
Parties
Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Standard of Review, Admissibility of New Evidence, Delay in Departure, Blasphemy Law, Remedies (quash/substitute/remit)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Standard of Review Admissibility of New Evidence Delay in Departure Blasphemy Law +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (male)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (female)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable
  2. 2 Whether new evidence satisfied IRPA s.110(4) and could be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing under IRPA s.110(6) was required

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because the RPD's adverse credibility findings and related factual conclusions were reasonable, the proffered medical letters and affidavit did not meet IRPA s.110(4) for new evidence and were therefore inadmissible, the documentary evidence was not sufficiently probative, and no basis existed to order an oral hearing; accordingly the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Decision of the RPD confirmed pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(a)