TB9-17674

TB9-17674

The RAD independently reviewed the record, found the appellants' core allegations undermined by multiple significant and unexplained inconsistencies between the Basis of Claim and oral testimony, concluded the proffered post‑decision school letter was not admissible under s.110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza criteria, and held the documentary and testimonial record did not credibly establish enrollment, hospital visit, or threats by agents; therefore the RPD's adverse credibility finding was sustained and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
TB9-17674
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (daughter, Minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (son, Minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (son, US Citizen by Birth): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision Rejecting Refugee Claims; RAD Judicial Review on Credibility and Admissibility of New Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Presumption of Truthfulness, State Protection, Procedural Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Presumption of Truthfulness State Protection +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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (daughter, Minor)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (son, Minor)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (son, US Citizen by Birth)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision Rejecting Refugee Claims; RAD Judicial Review on Credibility and Admissibility of New Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' claims were credible
  2. 2 Whether proposed new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza tests (credibility, relevance, newness)
  3. 3 Whether state protection and agents of persecution were properly addressed

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD independently reviewed the record, found the appellants' core allegations undermined by multiple significant and unexplained inconsistencies between the Basis of Claim and oral testimony, concluded the proffered post‑decision school letter was not admissible under s.110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza criteria, and held the documentary and testimonial record did not credibly establish enrollment, hospital visit, or threats by agents; therefore the RPD's adverse credibility finding was sustained and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • Dismissal of appeal and confirmation of RPD decision dated June 14, 2019; removal to Nigeria upheld subject to applicable immigration law processes