MB7-01323

MB7-01323

The RAD dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RPD because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and supported by multiple unexplained inconsistencies and unreliable documentary evidence (occupation discrepancies, flawed veterinarian letter, unpersuasive photographs, contradictions in statements about being wanted and passport issuance); the RPD did not err in its legal analysis under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA nor in refusing to admit or rely on the proffered new evidence, and no hearing was warranted under s.110(6).

Citation
MB7-01323
Parties
Appellant / Person Subject of Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Intervenor / Respondent: Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal Before Refugee Appeal Division (rad) — Determination on Merits and Admissibility of Evidence/extension of Time
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Subsection 97(1) IRPA (risk/torture/death/cruel Treatment), Admissibility of New Evidence (s110(4)), Extension of Time, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Subsection 97(1) IRPA (risk/torture/death/cruel Treatment) Admissibility of New Evidence (s110(4)) +4 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Subject of Appeal

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Intervenor / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal Before Refugee Appeal Division (rad) — Determination on Merits and Admissibility of Evidence/extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the appellant put forward admissible new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and whether a hearing was required under s.110(6)
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to conduct a separate analysis under s.97(1) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RPD because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and supported by multiple unexplained inconsistencies and unreliable documentary evidence (occupation discrepancies, flawed veterinarian letter, unpersuasive photographs, contradictions in statements about being wanted and passport issuance); the RPD did not err in its legal analysis under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA nor in refusing to admit or rely on the proffered new evidence, and no hearing was warranted under s.110(6).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Pursuant to s.111(1) IRPA the RPD determination is confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection