TB7-22176

TB7-22176

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD found the RPD's credibility findings and factual conclusions were correct: key allegations were inconsistent or unsupported, proposed new evidence partly failed s.110(4), omissions and re-availment justified negative credibility inferences, and on the balance of probabilities there is no serious possibility of persecution under s.96 nor need for protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TB7-22176
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Re Availment, Standard of Review, Well Founded Fear of Persecution, IRPA Sections 96 and 97
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Re Availment Standard of Review Well Founded Fear of Persecution +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new evidence meets subsection 110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether RPD erred in credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether Appellants re-availed themselves to Dominican Republic undermining fear

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD found the RPD's credibility findings and factual conclusions were correct: key allegations were inconsistent or unsupported, proposed new evidence partly failed s.110(4), omissions and re-availment justified negative credibility inferences, and on the balance of probabilities there is no serious possibility of persecution under s.96 nor need for protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

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