TB7-20458

TB7-20458

The RAD dismissed the appeal because it upheld the RPD's credibility finding, rejected most proffered police evidence as not meeting the admissibility and Raza/Singh criteria, accepted only country‑condition articles which did not demonstrate a personalized forward‑looking risk from the ex‑husband or gang recruitment, and therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB7-20458
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Redetermination) / Re Determination Following Federal Court Remittal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, State Protection, New Evidence Admissibility (s.110 Irpa), Compelling Reasons Doctrine, Country Conditions, Oral Hearing Request
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Findings State Protection New Evidence Admissibility (s.110 Irpa) Compelling Reasons Doctrine +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Redetermination) / Re Determination Following Federal Court Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence met subsection 110(4) IRPA and Raza/Singh criteria
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether the RPD was required to apply the compelling reasons doctrine

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because it upheld the RPD's credibility finding, rejected most proffered police evidence as not meeting the admissibility and Raza/Singh criteria, accepted only country‑condition articles which did not demonstrate a personalized forward‑looking risk from the ex‑husband or gang recruitment, and therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division decision of September 18, 2017 confirmed