TB7-07479

TB7-07479

The RAD affirms the RPD because the principal Appellant was found generally not credible based on numerous material omissions in his Basis of Claim, evolving, evasive and inconsistent testimony, and a false sworn allegation against former counsel; supporting documents lacked proven provenance and did not overcome credibility defects, and the admitted new evidence was not determinative — therefore the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB7-07479
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, Admissibility of New Evidence, Article 1 F(b) Exclusion, Risk Assessment (clan Membership), Basis of Claim Omissions, Request for Oral Hearing
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Admissibility of New Evidence Article 1 F(b) Exclusion Risk Assessment (clan Membership) Basis of Claim Omissions +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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether BOC omissions were material and justified adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 whether re-translated documents and statutory declaration are admissible new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 whether RPD misapprehended risk related to Almajidi clan membership

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirms the RPD because the principal Appellant was found generally not credible based on numerous material omissions in his Basis of Claim, evolving, evasive and inconsistent testimony, and a false sworn allegation against former counsel; supporting documents lacked proven provenance and did not overcome credibility defects, and the admitted new evidence was not determinative — therefore the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act