TB7-05162

TB7-05162

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel; the proffered documents do not meet s.110(4) as they relate to events before rejection or were reasonably available and fail Raza materiality/newness/credibility tests; principal appellant's testimony and documentary record lack credibility; accordingly there is no serious possibility of persecution and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TB7-05162
Parties
Principal Appellant / Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Immigration and Refugee — Refugee Protection Appeal to RAD / Final Decision on Appeal (rad Confirms Rpd)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Remittal to RPD
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Credibility Assessment Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant / Designated Representative

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Immigration and Refugee — Refugee Protection Appeal to RAD / Final Decision on Appeal (rad Confirms Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether alleged ineffective assistance of former counsel breached natural justice and deprived appellants of a fair hearing
  2. 2 Whether the proposed new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and Raza/Singh criteria to justify admission and an oral hearing under s.110(6)
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings and in assessing documentary evidence (warrant, affidavits)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel; the proffered documents do not meet s.110(4) as they relate to events before rejection or were reasonably available and fail Raza materiality/newness/credibility tests; principal appellant's testimony and documentary record lack credibility; accordingly there is no serious possibility of persecution and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated February 14, 2017 is confirmed