TB8-07552

TB8-07552

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility finding because the Principal Appellant's testimony and written narrative contained significant omissions and lack of detail regarding the central three‑year relationship, omitted a material washroom incident from the original narrative, and inconsistently described family meetings; the newly tendered evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA admissibility requirements and was therefore not accepted; Chairperson's Guidelines 8 and 9 were applied appropriately; consequently the appeal was dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB8-07552
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Vulnerable Persons Accommodations, Sexual Orientation Claims, Admissibility of New Evidence, Request for Oral Hearing
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Credibility Assessment Vulnerable Persons Accommodations Sexual Orientation Claims Admissibility of New Evidence +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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the Principal Appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to accommodate a vulnerable person under Chairperson's Guideline 8
  3. 3 Whether Chairperson's Guideline 9 was properly applied in proceedings involving sexual orientation

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility finding because the Principal Appellant's testimony and written narrative contained significant omissions and lack of detail regarding the central three‑year relationship, omitted a material washroom incident from the original narrative, and inconsistently described family meetings; the newly tendered evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA admissibility requirements and was therefore not accepted; Chairperson's Guidelines 8 and 9 were applied appropriately; consequently the appeal was dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • New evidence not admitted (medical report, psychologist report, third‑party letter, photograph) as not meeting subsection 110(4) IRPA requirements