TC0-06518

TC0-06518

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the principal appellant's core allegations were undermined by materially inconsistent testimony about his activism and departure from Iran, the submitted subpoena/summons was found to be fraudulent on its face and discounted, the proffered new evidence did not meet s.110(4) criteria and would not raise a serious credibility concern, and no gender-based claims were advanced for the associate appellants; on that basis appellants failed to prove risk on the balance of probabilities.

Citation
TC0-06518
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision With Reasons (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Gender Based Persecution, New Evidence Admissibility, Country Conditions, Travel/exit Permits, Document Authenticity
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Gender Based Persecution New Evidence Admissibility Country Conditions Travel/exit Permits +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision With Reasons (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD made unreasonable credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to address gender-related allegations of female appellants
  3. 3 Admissibility of new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and Singh/Raza factors

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the principal appellant's core allegations were undermined by materially inconsistent testimony about his activism and departure from Iran, the submitted subpoena/summons was found to be fraudulent on its face and discounted, the proffered new evidence did not meet s.110(4) criteria and would not raise a serious credibility concern, and no gender-based claims were advanced for the associate appellants; on that basis appellants failed to prove risk on the balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • New evidence rejected as not meeting s.110(4) criteria and no hearing under s.110(6) ordered