TC1-04661

TC1-04661

The appeal is dismissed because material inconsistencies and evolving testimony about the accident and bodycam transcript, the Appellants' failure to obtain or present reasonable corroboration, and an official Certificate of Conviction that contradicted their claim, together rendered the Appellants not credible and the proposed new evidence inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA and Singh; accordingly there is no serious possibility of persecution or s.97 risk and the RPD decision is confirmed under para.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TC1-04661
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Risk Assessment Under IRPA, Oral Hearing Requirements
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Procedural Fairness Risk Assessment Under IRPA Oral Hearing Requirements

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the Appellants were credible
  2. 2 whether proposed new evidence met subsection 110(4) IRPA and Singh criteria
  3. 3 whether the RPD breached procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because material inconsistencies and evolving testimony about the accident and bodycam transcript, the Appellants' failure to obtain or present reasonable corroboration, and an official Certificate of Conviction that contradicted their claim, together rendered the Appellants not credible and the proposed new evidence inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA and Singh; accordingly there is no serious possibility of persecution or s.97 risk and the RPD decision is confirmed under para.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • Proposed new evidence excluded as not admissible under s.110(4) IRPA and Singh