MB3-04245

MB3-04245

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's adverse credibility finding was reasonable and defensible on the record given inconsistencies, omissions, implausibilities and questionable probative value of documents; the appellant failed to admissibly present new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and therefore failed to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MB3-04245
Parties
Appellant: Flutur STEJA; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal and Admissibility of New Evidence; No Hearing Held
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment in Refugee Claims, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review (reasonableness), Procedural Requirements for Appeals
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment in Refugee Claims Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review (reasonableness) Procedural Requirements for Appeals

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Flutur STEJA

Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal and Admissibility of New Evidence; No Hearing Held

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether new evidence should be admitted under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether a hearing should be held under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's adverse credibility finding was reasonable and defensible on the record given inconsistencies, omissions, implausibilities and questionable probative value of documents; the appellant failed to admissibly present new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and therefore failed to meet the criteria for a hearing under s.110(6) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division determination confirmed