TB6-06975

TB6-06975

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellants failed to establish procedural unfairness or that interpreting errors required an audit or de novo hearing, failed to show the medical letter met s.110(4) and was not reasonably available, the admitted news articles did not raise a central credibility issue warranting an oral hearing, and the Appellants failed to rebut the RPD finding that a reasonable internal flight alternative exists in Kiev such that there is a serious possibility of persecution there; therefore the RPD's negative refugee protection decision stands.

Citation
TB6-06975
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (confirmation/dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Procedural Fairness and Interpretation, Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Assessment, Oral Hearing Under S.110(6) IRPA, Gender Related Persecution Guideline
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Procedural Fairness and Interpretation Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Assessment Oral Hearing Under S.110(6) IRPA +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (confirmation/dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to order de novo hearing or audit interpretation
  2. 2 Whether new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and should be admitted
  3. 3 Whether admitted new evidence raises a serious credibility issue warranting an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellants failed to establish procedural unfairness or that interpreting errors required an audit or de novo hearing, failed to show the medical letter met s.110(4) and was not reasonably available, the admitted news articles did not raise a central credibility issue warranting an oral hearing, and the Appellants failed to rebut the RPD finding that a reasonable internal flight alternative exists in Kiev such that there is a serious possibility of persecution there; therefore the RPD's negative refugee protection decision stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA