TB8-06515

TB8-06515

Although some of the RPD's limited reasons and application of the SOGIE Guidelines were flawed, the totality of the evidence (vague, inconsistent and implausible testimony regarding a long‑term relationship and an alleged attack, plus unexplained phone contents) rebutted the presumption of truthfulness; most new evidence was inadmissible; therefore the appellant was not a credible witness and the RPD decision dismissing the claim was confirmed.

Citation
TB8-06515
Parties
Appellant / Person Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (no Oral Hearing Convened)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Refugee Appeal Division confirms RPD decision that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Interpretation Rights, SOGIE Guidelines Application, Presumption of Truthfulness, Corroboration, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Interpretation Rights SOGIE Guidelines Application +3 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Subject of the Appeal

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (no Oral Hearing Convened)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence is admissible on appeal under s.110(4) IRPA and RAD Rule 29
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility and plausibility findings regarding the appellant's sexual orientation
  3. 3 Whether the RPD properly applied the SOGIE Guidelines

Ratio Decidendi

Although some of the RPD's limited reasons and application of the SOGIE Guidelines were flawed, the totality of the evidence (vague, inconsistent and implausible testimony regarding a long‑term relationship and an alleged attack, plus unexplained phone contents) rebutted the presumption of truthfulness; most new evidence was inadmissible; therefore the appellant was not a credible witness and the RPD decision dismissing the claim was confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Refugee Appeal Division confirms RPD decision that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA