VB5-00411

VB5-00411

RAD confirmed the RPD decision because, after an independent comprehensive review, the appellants' evidence contained contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions undermining credibility and demonstrating lack of subjective fear; the proposed new documents were either not new, not reasonably unavailable or not relevant and thus did not meet s.110(4); no hearing was warranted under s.110(6); appeal dismissed.

Citation
VB5-00411
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision; RAD Review and Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, New Evidence Admissibility, Standard of Review, Section 110(4) IRPA, Section 111 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility New Evidence Admissibility Standard of Review Section 110(4) IRPA Section 111 IRPA

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision; RAD Review and Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings and in finding appellants lacked subjective fear
  2. 2 Whether proposed new evidence should be admitted under s.110(4) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether a RAD hearing is required under s.110(6) given the record

Ratio Decidendi

RAD confirmed the RPD decision because, after an independent comprehensive review, the appellants' evidence contained contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions undermining credibility and demonstrating lack of subjective fear; the proposed new documents were either not new, not reasonably unavailable or not relevant and thus did not meet s.110(4); no hearing was warranted under s.110(6); appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
  • Appeal dismissed