TB9-12391

TB9-12391

The RAD independently reviewed the record, admitted the photograph but excluded the bank statements as s.110(4) evidence, found that cumulative inconsistencies and inadequate explanations—including an undermined police report and contradictory testimony about dates and events—rendered the appellants not credible, and therefore affirmed the RPD's conclusion that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-12391
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Reviewing RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence S.110(4) IRPA, Oral Hearing S.110(6) IRPA, Weight of Police Reports and Corroboration, Procedural Fairness and Mental Health Considerations, FGM Risk Claims
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence S.110(4) IRPA Oral Hearing S.110(6) IRPA Weight of Police Reports and Corroboration +2 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Reviewing RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the appellants
  2. 2 Whether bank statements and a photograph qualify as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing was required under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD independently reviewed the record, admitted the photograph but excluded the bank statements as s.110(4) evidence, found that cumulative inconsistencies and inadequate explanations—including an undermined police report and contradictory testimony about dates and events—rendered the appellants not credible, and therefore affirmed the RPD's conclusion that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA
  • Bank statements submitted on appeal are not admitted as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA