MC0-09261

MC0-09261

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD affirmed the RPD's central adverse credibility findings on key factual matters (contradictory, muddled testimony about the location of the certificates and inconsistent explanations about the husband's return and detention), the purported new evidence was not new or admissible under s.110(4) IRPA and, as a result, the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk on return.

Citation
MC0-09261
Parties
Appellant: Female appellant; Appellants: Minor appellants (DRC citizens); Appellant: Minor female appellant (United States citizen)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Under Irpa) / Decision on Appeal (dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Risk of Persecution, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Risk of Persecution Procedural Fairness

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Female appellant

Appellant

Minor appellants (DRC citizens)

Appellants

Minor female appellant (United States citizen)

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Under Irpa) / Decision on Appeal (dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence (documents A-1 and A-2) is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA and the Raza/Singh criteria
  2. 2 Whether the female appellant was credible on key factual matters (location of certificates, circumstances of husband's return and detention, wanted notices, Facebook postings)
  3. 3 Whether appellants established a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment on return

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD affirmed the RPD's central adverse credibility findings on key factual matters (contradictory, muddled testimony about the location of the certificates and inconsistent explanations about the husband's return and detention), the purported new evidence was not new or admissible under s.110(4) IRPA and, as a result, the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk on return.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; the Refugee Protection Division determination is confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.