VB7-04013

VB7-04013

RAD confirms RPD because principal appellant's testimony contained multiple significant unresolved inconsistencies and ongoing whispering that undermined credibility; newly submitted letters lacked new substantive content and indicia of reliability and failed s.110(4)/RAD Rule 3(g) requirements; country documentation (DOS) indicates only occasional arrests of opposition supporters, so evidence is insufficient to show more than a mere possibility of persecution or that appellants meet s.97 protection thresholds.

Citation
VB7-04013
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Persecution Standard (more Than a Mere Possibility), Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa), Standard of Review and Deference, Request for Oral Hearing
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Persecution Standard (more Than a Mere Possibility) Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa) +2 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal appellant's testimony is credible
  2. 2 Whether harassment amounted to persecution (more than a mere possibility)
  3. 3 Whether new documentary evidence should be admitted on appeal under s.110(4) IRPA and RAD Rule 3(g)

Ratio Decidendi

RAD confirms RPD because principal appellant's testimony contained multiple significant unresolved inconsistencies and ongoing whispering that undermined credibility; newly submitted letters lacked new substantive content and indicia of reliability and failed s.110(4)/RAD Rule 3(g) requirements; country documentation (DOS) indicates only occasional arrests of opposition supporters, so evidence is insufficient to show more than a mere possibility of persecution or that appellants meet s.97 protection thresholds.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision

Orders

  • New documentary evidence not admitted on the record (s.110(4) IRPA and RAD Rule 3(g))
  • Request for oral hearing denied (no admissible new evidence meeting s.110(6) IRPA)