TB8-27017

TB8-27017

The appeal is dismissed because the appellants failed to meet the balance of probabilities standard: the principal allegations were undermined by material omissions in the Basis of Claim, significant inconsistencies in testimony, lack of corroboration for key assertions, no admissible new evidence under s.110(4), and no established reasonable apprehension of bias; therefore the RPD's rejection of refugee protection and need for protection was correct.

Citation
TB8-27017
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Appellant Associate: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Associate: XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister: Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, Bias, New Evidence Admissibility, Section 97 IRPA Assessment, Refugee Protection, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Bias New Evidence Admissibility Section 97 IRPA Assessment Refugee Protection +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Associate

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Associate

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (Canada)

Respondent Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Reasonable apprehension of bias
  3. 3 Credibility assessment and material omissions

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the appellants failed to meet the balance of probabilities standard: the principal allegations were undermined by material omissions in the Basis of Claim, significant inconsistencies in testimony, lack of corroboration for key assertions, no admissible new evidence under s.110(4), and no established reasonable apprehension of bias; therefore the RPD's rejection of refugee protection and need for protection was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed