TB9-20986

TB9-20986

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD independently found the appellants made material unexplained omissions in their original narratives, failed to provide objective evidence linking alleged spiritual attacks to the father's death, and exhibited delays and abandonment of US claims that are inconsistent with subjective fear; new documents submitted on appeal did not meet s.110(4) IRPA and therefore were not admitted, and no oral hearing jurisdiction arose under s.110(6).

Citation
TB9-20986
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Belief Based Persecution/spiritual Attacks, Internal Relocation, Admissibility of New Evidence, Abandonment of Asylum Claim, Delay in Claiming Asylum, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Belief Based Persecution/spiritual Attacks Internal Relocation Admissibility of New Evidence +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Male Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellants

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the appellants demonstrated subjective fear of persecution
  3. 3 Admissibility of new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and Raza/Singh factors

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD independently found the appellants made material unexplained omissions in their original narratives, failed to provide objective evidence linking alleged spiritual attacks to the father's death, and exhibited delays and abandonment of US claims that are inconsistent with subjective fear; new documents submitted on appeal did not meet s.110(4) IRPA and therefore were not admitted, and no oral hearing jurisdiction arose under s.110(6).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated July 18, 2019 affirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA
  • New evidence submitted on appeal not admitted under s.110(4) IRPA; no oral hearing ordered under s.110(6) IRPA