MB3-03157

MB3-03157

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the post‑decision documents were inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA, the audio recording did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias, and the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and fell within a range of acceptable outcomes; accordingly the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB3-03157
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Co Appellant (son): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Appearance of Bias, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Appearance of Bias Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Procedural Fairness

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant (son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division's conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellants' credibility
  3. 3 Whether evidence submitted after the RPD decision (Exhibits A-1 and A-2) is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the post‑decision documents were inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA, the audio recording did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias, and the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and fell within a range of acceptable outcomes; accordingly the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Refugee Appeal Division confirms the RPD determination that the appellants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA or persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  • Exhibits A-1 and A-2 are excluded from the appeal record as inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA