TB7-02708

TB7-02708

The RAD, applying the correctness standard, admitted the late evidence where it post‑dated the RPD but found the evidence either of limited probative value or inadequately corroborated; central omissions in port of entry notes, unexplained failure to obtain police/medical documentation and contradictions in testimony fatally undermined credibility; on the facts the incidents alleged did not amount to persecution and the RPD determination that Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Citation
TB7-02708
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co‑appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellants: XXXX XXXX (A.K.A. XXXX XXXX) and XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision With New Evidence Submitted; RAD Correctness Review of RPD Decision Under Huruglica Guidance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Ethnic Discrimination (roma), Eviction, Persecution, Country Condition Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Ethnic Discrimination (roma) Eviction +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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co‑appellant

XXXX XXXX (A.K.A. XXXX XXXX) and XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellants

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)

Respondent Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision With New Evidence Submitted; RAD Correctness Review of RPD Decision Under Huruglica Guidance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RAD should admit and weigh new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the principal and co‑appellants were credible given omissions and lack of corroboration
  3. 3 Whether alleged eviction and assaults amounted to persecution or a need for protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD, applying the correctness standard, admitted the late evidence where it post‑dated the RPD but found the evidence either of limited probative value or inadequately corroborated; central omissions in port of entry notes, unexplained failure to obtain police/medical documentation and contradictions in testimony fatally undermined credibility; on the facts the incidents alleged did not amount to persecution and the RPD determination that Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RAD confirms RPD decision dated January 18, 2017