MB9-20954

MB9-20954

The Appellants made a material misrepresentation about when they first met which undermined their credibility; the supporting and newly proffered documents either pre-dated the RPD decision and were reasonably available, were self-reported or otherwise unreliable and thus insufficient to establish an ongoing risk from the ex-husband; therefore the RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the RPD decision that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB9-20954
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX Eije; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, New Evidence on Appeal, Gender Based Persecution, Misrepresentation, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Evidence Law Family Law Human Rights Credibility New Evidence on Appeal Gender Based Persecution +2 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX Eije

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants were credible regarding the timeline of their relationship and events
  2. 2 Whether the new documentary evidence should be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants established a risk of persecution from the ex-husband sufficient for refugee protection

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellants made a material misrepresentation about when they first met which undermined their credibility; the supporting and newly proffered documents either pre-dated the RPD decision and were reasonably available, were self-reported or otherwise unreliable and thus insufficient to establish an ongoing risk from the ex-husband; therefore the RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the RPD decision that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act