TB4-04948

TB4-04948

The RAD affirmed the RPD: the negative credibility findings were supported by unexplained delay in claiming, failure to disclose fear at port of entry, inconsistent testimony about multiple U.S. visa applications, and lack of probative corroborative medical or psychiatric evidence; the purported new evidence did not meet s.110(4) and no palpable and overriding error was shown, therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB4-04948
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant (husband): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (child): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)), Vulnerability and Psychiatric Evaluation, Standard of Review/deference to First Instance, Delay in Claiming, Documentary Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)) Vulnerability and Psychiatric Evaluation Standard of Review/deference to First Instance Delay in Claiming +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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant (husband)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (child)

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the Appellants not credible
  2. 2 Whether documents appended on appeal were admissible under s.110(4)
  3. 3 Whether the RPD should have ordered or offered a psychiatric evaluation or treated the Appellants as vulnerable

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirmed the RPD: the negative credibility findings were supported by unexplained delay in claiming, failure to disclose fear at port of entry, inconsistent testimony about multiple U.S. visa applications, and lack of probative corroborative medical or psychiatric evidence; the purported new evidence did not meet s.110(4) and no palpable and overriding error was shown, therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of IRPA the decision of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed and the appeals are dismissed.