TB4-00328

TB4-00328

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings on identity documents and held the new evidence inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA because it post-dated the RPD decision and the appellants did not reasonably explain prior unavailability; because identity was not established the refugee claim must be denied, so the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TB4-00328
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Immigration and Refugee Protection Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Identity, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Credibility Findings, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Procedure
Source Language
English

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Immigration and Refugee Protection Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From RPD Decision

  1. 1 Whether the appellants established their civil/national identity
  2. 2 Whether new evidence submitted on appeal is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Appropriate standard of review and deference to RPD on findings of fact and credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings on identity documents and held the new evidence inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA because it post-dated the RPD decision and the appellants did not reasonably explain prior unavailability; because identity was not established the refugee claim must be denied, so the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of IRPA
  • RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed