TB6-04779

TB6-04779

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellants failed to adduce admissible new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA, the RPD's adverse credibility findings based on lack of corroboration and implausibility were reasonable, there was no established nexus to a Convention ground or objectively well‑founded fear of persecution, and no basis existed to grant an oral hearing under s.110(6); accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TB6-04779
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Secondary Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision on Appeal Recorded
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms decision of the Refugee Protection Division
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Oral Hearing Request (s.110(6) Irpa), Nexus to Convention Ground (political Opinion), Corroboration, Standard of Review/role of RAD
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Oral Hearing Request (s.110(6) Irpa) Nexus to Convention Ground (political Opinion) Corroboration +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Secondary Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision on Appeal Recorded

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and should be admitted
  2. 2 Whether an oral hearing is warranted under s.110(6) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility finding was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellants failed to adduce admissible new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA, the RPD's adverse credibility findings based on lack of corroboration and implausibility were reasonable, there was no established nexus to a Convention ground or objectively well‑founded fear of persecution, and no basis existed to grant an oral hearing under s.110(6); accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms decision of the Refugee Protection Division

Orders

  • Appellants' request to admit new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA denied
  • Request for an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA denied