TB9-33272

TB9-33272

The RAD upheld the RPD's credibility findings because the appellants' testimony displayed non-spontaneity, memory gaps, and reliance on documentary evidence that the tribunal found not genuine; the proffered fresh evidence either did not meet s.110(4) IRPA or lacked credibility; the RPD properly applied the Gender Guidelines and considered the psychological report; on a balance of probabilities the appellants failed to prove they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection, so the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TB9-33272
Parties
Principal Appellant: Principal Appellant (name redacted); Associate Appellant: Associate Appellant (name redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons Issued January 28, 2021)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, Documentary Evidence Authenticity, Gender Based Persecution, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Psychological Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Credibility Documentary Evidence Authenticity Gender Based Persecution Admission of Fresh Evidence +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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (name redacted)

Principal Appellant

Associate Appellant (name redacted)

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons Issued January 28, 2021)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of post-hearing evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Credibility assessment and use of third-party affidavits/interviews
  3. 3 Application of Chairperson's Gender and Child Guidelines in testimony accommodations

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD's credibility findings because the appellants' testimony displayed non-spontaneity, memory gaps, and reliance on documentary evidence that the tribunal found not genuine; the proffered fresh evidence either did not meet s.110(4) IRPA or lacked credibility; the RPD properly applied the Gender Guidelines and considered the psychological report; on a balance of probabilities the appellants failed to prove they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection, so the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

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