MB9-05715

MB9-05715

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by the record and prior statements, the purported new translation was not genuinely new and should have been produced before the RPD under subrule 32(1), and the appellants therefore failed to meet their burden to establish a personal or prospective risk of persecution on return; appeal dismissed.

Citation
MB9-05715
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Heard and Decided by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admission of New Evidence, Prospective Risk Assessment, Land Restitution, Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admission of New Evidence Prospective Risk Assessment Land Restitution Persecution

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Heard and Decided by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the appellants
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in assessing prospective risk on return to Colombia
  3. 3 Whether the translation submitted after the RPD decision constituted new evidence warranting a hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by the record and prior statements, the purported new translation was not genuinely new and should have been produced before the RPD under subrule 32(1), and the appellants therefore failed to meet their burden to establish a personal or prospective risk of persecution on return; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision of February 21, 2019 confirmed
  • No new evidence accepted; no RAD hearing ordered