TB8-24570

TB8-24570

The RAD affirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings because the Principal Appellant failed to provide corroborative evidence of a close relationship with the deceased, provided evasive and inconsistent explanations (notably regarding omission and later disclosure of names), and misrepresented key facts on TRV applications; these deficiencies fatally undermined the claim and meant the appellants did not face a serious possibility of persecution, so the RPD decision was confirmed and appeals dismissed.

Citation
TB8-24570
Parties
Principal Appellant: Principal Appellant (name redacted); Spousal Appellant: Spousal Appellant (name redacted); Minor Appellant: Minor Appellant (name redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Disposition on Appeal (rad Decision)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing Threshold, Misrepresentation on Temporary Resident Visa, Family Derivative Claims
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Oral Hearing Threshold Misrepresentation on Temporary Resident Visa Family Derivative Claims

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (name redacted)

Principal Appellant

Spousal Appellant (name redacted)

Spousal Appellant

Minor Appellant (name redacted)

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Disposition on Appeal (rad Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant was credible
  2. 2 Whether the Principal Appellant had a close relationship with the deceased (XXXX) as alleged
  3. 3 Whether new documentary evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza factors

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings because the Principal Appellant failed to provide corroborative evidence of a close relationship with the deceased, provided evasive and inconsistent explanations (notably regarding omission and later disclosure of names), and misrepresented key facts on TRV applications; these deficiencies fatally undermined the claim and meant the appellants did not face a serious possibility of persecution, so the RPD decision was confirmed and appeals dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA