VC3-02716

VC3-02716

On independent review RAD found the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified due to numerous significant unexplained inconsistencies, concluded on the balance of probabilities that the appellant intended to create and submit forged documents (based on intercepted DHL package and related evidence), and held that s.110 IRPA does not permit the appellant's requested witness testimony; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Citation
VC3-02716
Parties
Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Panel Member / Decision Maker: Susan Brown; Designated Representative: N/A; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, New Evidence (s.110 Irpa), Organized Criminality (mungiki), Forgery/fraudulent Documents, SOGIESC Considerations, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment New Evidence (s.110 Irpa) Organized Criminality (mungiki) Forgery/fraudulent Documents SOGIESC Considerations +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Susan Brown

Panel Member / Decision Maker

N/A

Designated Representative

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether RAD may admit witness testimony/new evidence under subsection 110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether issue of forcible recruitment by Mungiki was res judicata from the ID decision

Ratio Decidendi

On independent review RAD found the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified due to numerous significant unexplained inconsistencies, concluded on the balance of probabilities that the appellant intended to create and submit forged documents (based on intercepted DHL package and related evidence), and held that s.110 IRPA does not permit the appellant's requested witness testimony; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection