TB7-17185

TB7-17185

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants' credibility was decisively undermined by a significant omission at the port of entry and by lack of credible corroboration; the bulk of proffered new evidence was inadmissible or non‑probative under s.110(4)/RAD Rules; objective country evidence and the appellants' circumstances show Turkish authorities are not interested in them, and Kurdish ethnicity alone does not establish a serious possibility of persecution, therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB7-17185
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for Appellant: Sarah Boyd; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From RPD Refusal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Country Conditions, Procedural Fairness, Convention Refugee Status
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Country Conditions Procedural Fairness Convention Refugee Status

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Sarah Boyd

Counsel for Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Counsel for Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From RPD Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether appellants are credible about membership in the XXXX movement
  2. 2 whether new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and RAD Rules requirements
  3. 3 whether appellants face risk on account of perceived XXXX membership

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants' credibility was decisively undermined by a significant omission at the port of entry and by lack of credible corroboration; the bulk of proffered new evidence was inadmissible or non‑probative under s.110(4)/RAD Rules; objective country evidence and the appellants' circumstances show Turkish authorities are not interested in them, and Kurdish ethnicity alone does not establish a serious possibility of persecution, therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA