TC1-02733

TC1-02733

The RAD dismissed the appeals because the proposed new evidence was not admissible under s.110(4) IRPA and, on independent review, the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by material omissions and inconsistencies (notably missing passport stamps, unexplained BOC omissions, inconsistent testimony about threats and timing), and the documentary evidence lacked independent probative value or authenticity; therefore appellants failed to prove they are Convention refugees under s.96 or persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TC1-02733
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Second Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Intervenor: Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Reviewing Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, New Evidence Admissibility, Documentary Corroboration, Conversion Based Persecution, Procedural Review, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings New Evidence Admissibility Documentary Corroboration Conversion Based Persecution Procedural Review +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Second Associate Appellant

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Reviewing Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in adverse credibility findings regarding appellants' alleged conversion and travel to Pakistan
  2. 2 Whether the RAD should admit post-rejection new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD improperly rejected documentary evidence corroborating conversion and threats

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeals because the proposed new evidence was not admissible under s.110(4) IRPA and, on independent review, the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by material omissions and inconsistencies (notably missing passport stamps, unexplained BOC omissions, inconsistent testimony about threats and timing), and the documentary evidence lacked independent probative value or authenticity; therefore appellants failed to prove they are Convention refugees under s.96 or persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and Refugee Protection Division decision of March 16, 2021 confirmed
  • Request to admit airline ticket as new evidence denied (not admissible under s.110(4) IRPA)