TB8-20910

TB8-20910

The RAD affirmed the RPD: most proffered new evidence was not admissible; the documentary evidence presented at the RPD was suspicious or fraudulent and undermined the claim; the psychological reports did not, even if partially explanatory of testimonial defects, change the overall conclusion that the Appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that they are bisexual and therefore entitled to protection.

Citation
TB8-20910
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (admissibility of New Evidence and Merits)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Sexual Orientation Asylum Claims, Use of Psychological Evidence in Credibility Findings, Procedural Rules for Appeals
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Sexual Orientation Asylum Claims Use of Psychological Evidence in Credibility Findings Procedural Rules for Appeals

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (admissibility of New Evidence and Merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants' proffered new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and RAD Rules criteria for admission
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the Appellants' claim to be bisexual
  3. 3 Whether psychological reports required a different assessment of testimonial vagueness and memory deficits

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirmed the RPD: most proffered new evidence was not admissible; the documentary evidence presented at the RPD was suspicious or fraudulent and undermined the claim; the psychological reports did not, even if partially explanatory of testimonial defects, change the overall conclusion that the Appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that they are bisexual and therefore entitled to protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision finding appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection confirmed