TB9-28498

TB9-28498

The RPD correctly found the appellants not credible based on multiple material inconsistencies between testimony, their Basis of Claim forms and supporting documents; most post‑decision letters did not meet s.110(4) IRPA and were inadmissible, the sole admitted psychological report did not remedy credibility defects or meet the s.110(6) threshold for an oral hearing, and therefore the RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB9-28498
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Division Decision Reviewed by Refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision by RAD on Appeal (confirmation of RPD Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s110(4) Irpa), Oral Hearing (s110(6) Irpa), Natural Justice and Interpretation Quality, Medical/psychological Evidence, Corroboration of Documentary Evidence, Risk Assessment Under Sections 96/97 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s110(4) Irpa) Oral Hearing (s110(6) Irpa) Natural Justice and Interpretation Quality +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellants

Minister of Immigration

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Division Decision Reviewed by Refugee Appeal Division) / Final Decision by RAD on Appeal (confirmation of RPD Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in rejecting appellants' claim for lack of credibility
  2. 2 Whether new evidence met the s.110(4) IRPA criteria and should be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing should be granted under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD correctly found the appellants not credible based on multiple material inconsistencies between testimony, their Basis of Claim forms and supporting documents; most post‑decision letters did not meet s.110(4) IRPA and were inadmissible, the sole admitted psychological report did not remedy credibility defects or meet the s.110(6) threshold for an oral hearing, and therefore the RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated September 26, 2019 confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA