MC0-08102

MC0-08102

The RAD confirmed the RPD did not err: the principal appellant failed to meet his burden to credibly establish the existence and recent operation of his company central to the extortion claim; the documents submitted on appeal were not admissible under s.110(4) IRPA or were insufficiently probative; contradictions and omissions justified adverse credibility findings; appeal dismissed.

Citation
MC0-08102
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal; Reasons Issued
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision affirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Convention Refugee Determination, Burden of Proof, Documentary Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Convention Refugee Determination Burden of Proof Documentary Corroboration

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal; Reasons Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in assessing the appellants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether the new documentary evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) IRPA and is admissible on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the principal appellant established on a balance of probabilities that his company existed and was the basis for extortion threats

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD did not err: the principal appellant failed to meet his burden to credibly establish the existence and recent operation of his company central to the extortion claim; the documents submitted on appeal were not admissible under s.110(4) IRPA or were insufficiently probative; contradictions and omissions justified adverse credibility findings; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision affirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed and the Refugee Protection Division determination is confirmed