TB4-02389

TB4-02389

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant's affidavit about interpreter quality did not qualify as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA, the appellant waived any objection by not raising it at first opportunity, the audio and record show no interpreter deficiencies, and the RPD's adverse credibility findings fall within a range of reasonable outcomes under the reasonableness standard of review.

Citation
TB4-02389
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Daughter: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Refusal and Dismissing Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Interpretation Competency and Waiver, Admissibility of New Evidence Under S.110(4) IRPA, Standard of Review (reasonableness)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Evidence and Procedure Credibility Assessment Interpretation Competency and Waiver Admissibility of New Evidence Under S.110(4) IRPA Standard of Review (reasonableness)

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Daughter

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Refusal and Dismissing Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's affidavit about interpreter competence constitutes new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether failure to object to interpreter quality constitutes waiver
  3. 3 Whether RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant's affidavit about interpreter quality did not qualify as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA, the appellant waived any objection by not raising it at first opportunity, the audio and record show no interpreter deficiencies, and the RPD's adverse credibility findings fall within a range of reasonable outcomes under the reasonableness standard of review.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA