TB7-23491

TB7-23491

The RAD confirmed the RPD because material inconsistencies and vagueness in the Principal Appellant's testimony and unexplained delay in filing the claim defeated credibility and subjective fear; proposed new evidence was inadmissible either because it was not new, was dated prior to the RPD decision, or lacked required certified translations, and therefore no oral hearing was warranted; accordingly the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB7-23491
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, Delay in Claiming, Gender Based Persecution, New Evidence Admissibility, Standard of Review, Oral Hearing Request
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Delay in Claiming Gender Based Persecution New Evidence Admissibility 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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether delay in claiming was satisfactorily explained and its impact on subjective fear
  3. 3 Whether the Gender Guidelines were considered and whether omission caused error

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because material inconsistencies and vagueness in the Principal Appellant's testimony and unexplained delay in filing the claim defeated credibility and subjective fear; proposed new evidence was inadmissible either because it was not new, was dated prior to the RPD decision, or lacked required certified translations, and therefore no oral hearing was warranted; accordingly the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Confirm RPD determination dated October 23, 2017 that appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
  • Refuse admission of proposed new evidence (bank letter, medical note, articles, affidavits lacking certified translator declarations)