MB5-01533

MB5-01533

The RAD confirmed the RPD's credibility-based rejection: the appellants' claim fails on credibility and plausibility grounds because of material contradictions, significant omissions, inconsistent behaviour (delay, continued residence and social activity), and because the fresh documents admitted on appeal were found unreliable and likely forged; accordingly the appellants are neither refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
MB5-01533
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellants are neither refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence, Standard for Hearings on New Evidence, Internal Flight Alternative, Plausibility Findings, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of Fresh Evidence Standard for Hearings on New Evidence Internal Flight Alternative Plausibility Findings +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant (spouse)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the principal appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether documents submitted on appeal met admissibility under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether a RAD hearing was required under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's credibility-based rejection: the appellants' claim fails on credibility and plausibility grounds because of material contradictions, significant omissions, inconsistent behaviour (delay, continued residence and social activity), and because the fresh documents admitted on appeal were found unreliable and likely forged; accordingly the appellants are neither refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellants are neither refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed under subsection 111(1) IRPA
  • RPD decision of March 20, 2015 is confirmed