MB9-16453

MB9-16453

The RAD independently reviewed the record and audio, concluded the new evidence did not meet s.110(4) criteria and was inadmissible, found the Principal Appellant's medical diagnosis did not explain material contradictions in her testimony, accepted the RPD's credibility findings (including evaluation of photographs and court documents), and determined the Appellants failed to establish past or prospective persecution or a serious risk of harm; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed.

Citation
MB9-16453
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Request for Oral Hearing (s.110(6) Irpa), Gender Based Persecution, Domestic Violence, Traditional Scarification Rituals, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Request for Oral Hearing (s.110(6) Irpa) Gender Based Persecution Domestic Violence +2 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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence meets admissibility criteria under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether RAD should hold an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the Principal Appellant's medical/psychological diagnosis explained credibility lapses

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD independently reviewed the record and audio, concluded the new evidence did not meet s.110(4) criteria and was inadmissible, found the Principal Appellant's medical diagnosis did not explain material contradictions in her testimony, accepted the RPD's credibility findings (including evaluation of photographs and court documents), and determined the Appellants failed to establish past or prospective persecution or a serious risk of harm; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed