TB8-29552

TB8-29552

The appeal is dismissed because the principal Appellant's testimony and supporting evidence were undermined by multiple implausibilities and inconsistencies identified by the RPD (and upheld by the RAD), the requested email evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA as it predates the RPD decision and was reasonably available, and on the balance of probabilities there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk to the family on return to Nigeria; therefore the RPD decision is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB8-29552
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: Minor Appellant 1; Minor Appellant: Minor Appellant 2
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Sexual Orientation and Persecution, SOGIE Guidelines, Maldonado Presumption, Perceived Risk to Family, Documentary Evidence Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Human Rights Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Sexual Orientation and Persecution +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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

Minor Appellant 1

Minor Appellant

Minor Appellant 2

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new email evidence met s.110(4) IRPA requirements for admission on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings and assessment of supporting documents
  3. 3 Whether there is a serious possibility of persecution or risk to family on return to Nigeria

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the principal Appellant's testimony and supporting evidence were undermined by multiple implausibilities and inconsistencies identified by the RPD (and upheld by the RAD), the requested email evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA as it predates the RPD decision and was reasonably available, and on the balance of probabilities there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk to the family on return to Nigeria; therefore the RPD decision is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • New evidence (email exchange) inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  • Request for hearing under s.110(6) IRPA denied