TB9-33939

TB9-33939

The RAD found the RPD's overall negative credibility conclusion correct because multiple unchallenged and plausible negative inferences were properly drawn by the RPD and affirmed by the RAD (lack of persuasive evidence linking threats/assaults to the university, absence of corroborating litigation documents, implausibility of actions alleged, failure to obtain expected support letters), the applicants' proffered new evidence failed IRPA s.110(4) as it could have been submitted earlier, and the single corroborating sister's letter given positive weight was insufficient to overcome the cumulative negative inferences; therefore the appellants do not meet the tests for Convention refugee...

Citation
TB9-33939
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Negative Credibility Finding
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admission of New Evidence, Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection, Domestic Violence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admission of New Evidence Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection Domestic Violence

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Negative Credibility Finding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether the RAD should admit new evidence under IRPA s.110(4)
  3. 3 Whether appellants qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD's overall negative credibility conclusion correct because multiple unchallenged and plausible negative inferences were properly drawn by the RPD and affirmed by the RAD (lack of persuasive evidence linking threats/assaults to the university, absence of corroborating litigation documents, implausibility of actions alleged, failure to obtain expected support letters), the applicants' proffered new evidence failed IRPA s.110(4) as it could have been submitted earlier, and the single corroborating sister's letter given positive weight was insufficient to overcome the cumulative negative inferences; therefore the appellants do not meet the tests for Convention refugee...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • New evidence (five articles) not admitted under IRPA s.110(4)