TB6-12706

TB6-12706

The RAD confirmed the RPD because, on review of the whole record and applicable jurisprudence and country documentation, the panel's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and supported by inconsistencies and implausibilities (undetected exit given Golden Shield, unexplained delay, failure to claim in the U.S., weak documentary corroboration); the proposed new evidence did not meet IRPA s.110(4) and would not alter the credibility assessment, and the sur place claim lacked bona fides given the credibility findings.

Citation
TB6-12706
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision (refugee Appeal Division)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Admissibility of New Evidence, Exit Controls/golden Shield, Failure to Claim in Third Country, Sur Place Claim, Documentary Evidence Weight
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Admissibility of New Evidence Exit Controls/golden Shield Failure to Claim in Third Country Sur Place Claim +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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision (refugee Appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RPD's adverse credibility findings were sustainable
  2. 2 Whether proposed new evidence met IRPA s.110(4) threshold
  3. 3 Whether appellants could have exited China while wanted by PSB using genuine passports

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because, on review of the whole record and applicable jurisprudence and country documentation, the panel's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and supported by inconsistencies and implausibilities (undetected exit given Golden Shield, unexplained delay, failure to claim in the U.S., weak documentary corroboration); the proposed new evidence did not meet IRPA s.110(4) and would not alter the credibility assessment, and the sur place claim lacked bona fides given the credibility findings.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed and RPD determination confirmed pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(a)
  • Application for admission of proposed new evidence refused