TB9-35369

TB9-35369

The appeal is dismissed because the new affidavit evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA and RAD rules, the appellants' credibility was undermined by material misrepresentations and unexplained reavailments, and the record lacks independent credible evidence that discrimination against them as Roma amounts to persecution or establishes a positive s.97(1) risk; disposition under section 96 was sufficient to deny protection.

Citation
TB9-35369
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Dependent (son): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Dependent (daughter): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal: Marjorie Hiley; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Appeal Decision (final)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; appellants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Admissibility of New Evidence, Reavailment, Persecution Assessment, Subsection 97(1) Risk, Procedural Fairness, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Admissibility of New Evidence Reavailment Persecution Assessment Subsection 97(1) Risk +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Dependent (son)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Dependent (daughter)

Marjorie Hiley

Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and RAD Rule 3(3)(g)(iii)
  2. 2 Whether the appellants were credible given alleged misrepresentations and reavailments
  3. 3 Whether alleged discrimination against Roma rose to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the new affidavit evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA and RAD rules, the appellants' credibility was undermined by material misrepresentations and unexplained reavailments, and the record lacks independent credible evidence that discrimination against them as Roma amounts to persecution or establishes a positive s.97(1) risk; disposition under section 96 was sufficient to deny protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; appellants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed