VC2-11076

VC2-11076

On the balance of probabilities the RAD found the RPD's decision correct: the Appellant failed to establish she is a genuine convert to Christianity, former counsel's conduct did not meet the high threshold for incompetence causing a miscarriage of justice, most post‑decision evidence did not meet s.110(4)/Singh‑Raza criteria or was of low probative value, and consequently there is no serious possibility of persecution or s.97(1) harm if returned to Iran; appeal dismissed.

Citation
VC2-11076
Parties
Appellant / Person Subject to Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: Marvin M Moses; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Presiding Member / Decision‑maker: Rouba Al‑Salem; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal — Reasons Issued
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision of November 21, 2022 is confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Counsel Misconduct, New Evidence Admission (s.110(4) Irpa), Sur‑place Claims, Procedural Fairness, Interpretation/accommodation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Counsel Misconduct New Evidence Admission (s.110(4) Irpa) Sur‑place Claims +2 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Subject to Appeal

Marvin M Moses

Counsel for the Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Rouba Al‑Salem

Presiding Member / Decision‑maker

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal — Reasons Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection based on conversion to Christianity
  2. 2 Whether former counsel's conduct amounted to incompetence and caused a miscarriage of justice
  3. 3 Whether new evidence meets subsection 110(4) IRPA and RAD Rule 29(4) criteria to be admitted

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the RAD found the RPD's decision correct: the Appellant failed to establish she is a genuine convert to Christianity, former counsel's conduct did not meet the high threshold for incompetence causing a miscarriage of justice, most post‑decision evidence did not meet s.110(4)/Singh‑Raza criteria or was of low probative value, and consequently there is no serious possibility of persecution or s.97(1) harm if returned to Iran; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision of November 21, 2022 is confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed (August 18, 2023)
  • No RAD oral hearing granted (request denied)