TB8-22172

TB8-22172

The RAD rejected the proffered new evidence as not meeting statutory criteria; found pervasive, central credibility defects and documentary irregularities that on the balance of probabilities show the principal Appellant is not a legitimate journalist and the named outlet is not a credible news agency; absent credible evidence of a heightened profile or legitimate readership, appellants do not face more than a mere possibility of persecution or a balance‑of‑probabilities risk of torture or cruel treatment on return; therefore RPD decision confirmed and appeal dismissed.

Citation
TB8-22172
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Appeal Decision / Reasons Issued
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Residual Risk / Forward‑looking Risk, Documentary Evidence Authenticity, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Residual Risk / Forward‑looking Risk Documentary Evidence Authenticity Standard of Review

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Appeal Decision / Reasons Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of post‑RPD evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether RPD credibility findings re: applicant as journalist were reasonable
  3. 3 Whether appellants possess a residual profile creating a forward‑looking risk on return

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD rejected the proffered new evidence as not meeting statutory criteria; found pervasive, central credibility defects and documentary irregularities that on the balance of probabilities show the principal Appellant is not a legitimate journalist and the named outlet is not a credible news agency; absent credible evidence of a heightened profile or legitimate readership, appellants do not face more than a mere possibility of persecution or a balance‑of‑probabilities risk of torture or cruel treatment on return; therefore RPD decision confirmed and appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act