MB9-29765

MB9-29765

The RAD upheld the RPD's credibility findings: the appellants made major omissions and provided inconsistent, evasive testimony; the two documents offered on appeal were reasonably available prior to the RPD and inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA; procedural fairness was respected; therefore the appellants failed to prove refugee status or need for protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB9-29765
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, New Evidence Admissibility, Procedural Fairness, Convention Refugee Status, Risk of Persecution, S.110(4) IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility New Evidence Admissibility Procedural Fairness Convention Refugee Status Risk of Persecution +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in rejecting the appellants' refugee claims based on credibility
  2. 2 Whether newly tendered documents meet the threshold under s.110(4) IRPA and are admissible
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was respected by the RPD

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD's credibility findings: the appellants made major omissions and provided inconsistent, evasive testimony; the two documents offered on appeal were reasonably available prior to the RPD and inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA; procedural fairness was respected; therefore the appellants failed to prove refugee status or need for protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division decision of November 22, 2019 confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection