MB7-08955

MB7-08955

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the principal appellant's credibility was fundamentally undermined by material omissions in his Basis of Claim, significant inconsistencies between his testimony and documentary records, and the purported new documents were either not new, inadmissible or of no probative value; no admissible new evidence raised a serious credibility issue to warrant a hearing, therefore the RPD's rejection of the refugee claims stands under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
MB7-08955
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision; RAD Paper Based Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of Evidence, RAD Procedure, Appeal Standards, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of Evidence RAD Procedure Appeal Standards Convention Refugee Determination

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision; RAD Paper Based Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the principal claimant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether documents filed on appeal constitute new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether a hearing should be held under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the principal appellant's credibility was fundamentally undermined by material omissions in his Basis of Claim, significant inconsistencies between his testimony and documentary records, and the purported new documents were either not new, inadmissible or of no probative value; no admissible new evidence raised a serious credibility issue to warrant a hearing, therefore the RPD's rejection of the refugee claims stands under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA