TB7-02713

TB7-02713

The RAD confirmed the RPD because on a balance of probabilities the Principal Appellant lacked credibility: implausible explanations for revealing her sexual orientation to her husband without forethought, failure to make or present reasonable plans for safe exit, failure to claim at port of entry, omissions of post‑decision material facts, irregularities undermining documentary photographs, and vague inconsistent testimony about past and present same‑sex relationships. The new evidence did not cure these defects and therefore did not establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or risk under sections 96–97 IRPA.

Citation
TB7-02713
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division After Oral Hearing on New Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms Refugee Protection Division decision under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)), Oral Hearing Criteria (s.110(6)), Sur Place Claims, Standard of Review / RAD Role, Sexual Orientation and SOGI Guidelines
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law (sexual Orientation) Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4)) Oral Hearing Criteria (s.110(6)) Sur Place Claims +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 7 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division After Oral Hearing on New Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether new evidence met s.110(4) and Raza criteria and warranted referral or allowance
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing was required under s.110(6)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because on a balance of probabilities the Principal Appellant lacked credibility: implausible explanations for revealing her sexual orientation to her husband without forethought, failure to make or present reasonable plans for safe exit, failure to claim at port of entry, omissions of post‑decision material facts, irregularities undermining documentary photographs, and vague inconsistent testimony about past and present same‑sex relationships. The new evidence did not cure these defects and therefore did not establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or risk under sections 96–97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms Refugee Protection Division decision under s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed