MB4-00771

MB4-00771

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the RPD's finding that the principal appellant lacked credibility was supported by numerous, material inconsistencies and unexplained omissions in the record; the documents proffered as new evidence were either already before the RPD or did not satisfy subsection 110(4) IRPA and would not have changed the outcome; therefore the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB4-00771
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Re Determination by Refugee Appeal Division Following Federal Court Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Gender Related Persecution Guideline, Remedies and Powers of RAD
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Gender Related Persecution Guideline Remedies and Powers of RAD

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Re Determination by Refugee Appeal Division Following Federal Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the principal appellant
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to apply the Guideline on Women Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution
  3. 3 Whether documents submitted post-RPD decision qualify as new evidence under subsection 110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the RPD's finding that the principal appellant lacked credibility was supported by numerous, material inconsistencies and unexplained omissions in the record; the documents proffered as new evidence were either already before the RPD or did not satisfy subsection 110(4) IRPA and would not have changed the outcome; therefore the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division determination confirmed pursuant to subsection 111(1) IRPA