TB5-10825

TB5-10825

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants were found not credible on grounds of unreasonable delay in claiming protection, re-availment to India, failure to obtain available corroborating medical and family evidence, and the proposed new evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA; no oral hearing was required; therefore appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB5-10825
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Secondary Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (confirmation of RPD Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing, Re Availment, Delay in Claiming, Persecution Based on Sexual Orientation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Oral Hearing Re Availment 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Secondary Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (confirmation of RPD Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and is admissible on appeal
  2. 2 Whether an oral hearing is required under ss.110(3),(4),(6) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings regarding delay, re-availment and lack of corroboration

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants were found not credible on grounds of unreasonable delay in claiming protection, re-availment to India, failure to obtain available corroborating medical and family evidence, and the proposed new evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA; no oral hearing was required; therefore appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA