TB7-07184

TB7-07184

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD, upon its own review, found the RPD's multiple credibility findings were justified and determinative: the principal appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she is bisexual or that the precipitating events occurred; the proposed new evidence is inadmissible under s.110(4) (not new or not explained) and does not overcome credibility concerns; there was no procedural fairness breach material to the result; accordingly the RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Citation
TB7-07184
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Negative Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Admissibility of New Evidence, Section 97 Protection, Gender Guidelines, Joinder/disjoinder of Claims
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness Admissibility of New Evidence Section 97 Protection Gender Guidelines +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Negative Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment
  2. 2 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness (failure to apply Gender Guidelines; failure to separate/joined claims)
  3. 3 Whether proposed new evidence is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD, upon its own review, found the RPD's multiple credibility findings were justified and determinative: the principal appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she is bisexual or that the precipitating events occurred; the proposed new evidence is inadmissible under s.110(4) (not new or not explained) and does not overcome credibility concerns; there was no procedural fairness breach material to the result; accordingly the RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Confirm RPD decision denying refugee protection
  • Dismiss application to admit new evidence as inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA