TB5-09667

TB5-09667

The RAD confirmed the RPD's credibility finding: material inconsistencies and unexplained omissions between testimony and documentary evidence (medical report) render the Appellants not credible; admitted new country documentation did not cure credibility defects; psychological report lacked independent factual foundation and had little weight; consequently the Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB5-09667
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD finding that the Appellants lacked credibility and are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, New Evidence Admissibility, Standard of Appellate Review, State Protection, Procedural Fairness, Roma Discrimination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility New Evidence Admissibility Standard of Appellate Review State Protection Procedural Fairness +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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants were credible
  2. 2 Whether new evidence (NDP and RIRs) is admissible and material
  3. 3 Reliability and probative value of the medical report

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's credibility finding: material inconsistencies and unexplained omissions between testimony and documentary evidence (medical report) render the Appellants not credible; admitted new country documentation did not cure credibility defects; psychological report lacked independent factual foundation and had little weight; consequently the Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD finding that the Appellants lacked credibility and are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA.