MB7-03529

MB7-03529

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because, despite some errors in the RPD's phrasing, the Principal Appellant's evidence contained material inconsistencies and implausibilities (timing of knowledge of threats, delay leaving Colombia, delay in claiming asylum, willingness to send children to Colombia) that, together with the failure to provide satisfactory explanations and the absence of corroboration that would indicate ongoing risk, justified discounting her claim; the male appellant and the minors were dismissed because they did not fear return to their countries of nationality; late notarized evidence was not admitted under RAD Rule 29 and no oral hearing was warranted.

Citation
MB7-03529
Parties
Principal Appellant (colombian): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (male, Mexican): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Child (usa): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Child (usa): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of Evidence, Delay in Claiming Asylum, Corroboration, Standard of Review, Designation of Representative
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of Evidence Delay in Claiming Asylum Corroboration Standard of Review +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant (colombian)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (male, Mexican)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child (usa)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child (usa)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the Principal Appellant
  2. 2 Whether the RAD should admit new documentary evidence filed after perfection of the appeal (RAD Rule 29)
  3. 3 Whether documentary evidence was improperly discounted by the RPD

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because, despite some errors in the RPD's phrasing, the Principal Appellant's evidence contained material inconsistencies and implausibilities (timing of knowledge of threats, delay leaving Colombia, delay in claiming asylum, willingness to send children to Colombia) that, together with the failure to provide satisfactory explanations and the absence of corroboration that would indicate ongoing risk, justified discounting her claim; the male appellant and the minors were dismissed because they did not fear return to their countries of nationality; late notarized evidence was not admitted under RAD Rule 29 and no oral hearing was warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Item 1 (June 13, 2017 notarized statement) not admitted under RAD Rule 29
  • No oral hearing before the RAD ordered