MB9-22207

MB9-22207

The appellants' evidence and testimony were found to be unreliable and inconsistent on material points; the pandemic-related documents did not meet the statutory test for new evidence (subsection 110(4) IRPA) nor the Singh/Raza relevance requirement and cannot transform public health system deficiencies into persecution under section 97 IRPA; accordingly, on independent review the RAD confirmed the RPD's finding of no credible risk and dismissed the appeal.

Citation
MB9-22207
Parties
Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Final Decision — Reasons Issued by RAD Member
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admission of New Evidence, Reopening/legitimate Expectations, Standard of Review, Risk Assessment Under Section 97 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admission of New Evidence Reopening/legitimate Expectations Standard of Review Risk Assessment Under Section 97 IRPA

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Male Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Final Decision — Reasons Issued by RAD Member

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence submitted after RPD decision meets subsection 110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza test and is relevant under rule 29
  2. 2 Whether appellants' testimony is credible and consistent
  3. 3 Whether appellants established a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life/torture/CRTP under sections 96/97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants' evidence and testimony were found to be unreliable and inconsistent on material points; the pandemic-related documents did not meet the statutory test for new evidence (subsection 110(4) IRPA) nor the Singh/Raza relevance requirement and cannot transform public health system deficiencies into persecution under section 97 IRPA; accordingly, on independent review the RAD confirmed the RPD's finding of no credible risk and dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD determination confirmed
  • Application to admit pandemic-related documents refused for lack of relevance and failure to meet subsection 110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza criteria