TB9-06111

TB9-06111

The RAD found the new documents inadmissible or not credible on their face, concluded the RPD's negative credibility findings were justified by omissions, contradictions, delay and lack of corroboration, and therefore upheld the RPD decision dismissing the refugee claims.

Citation
TB9-06111
Parties
Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division After Refugee Protection Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Refugee Protection Division decision of February 18, 2019 confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Internal Flight Alternative, Well Founded Fear of Persecution, Documentary Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Internal Flight Alternative Well Founded Fear of Persecution Documentary Corroboration

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellants

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division After Refugee Protection Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and is admissible on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants' claims are credible
  3. 3 Whether delay in seeking asylum in first country undermines subjective fear

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the new documents inadmissible or not credible on their face, concluded the RPD's negative credibility findings were justified by omissions, contradictions, delay and lack of corroboration, and therefore upheld the RPD decision dismissing the refugee claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Refugee Protection Division decision of February 18, 2019 confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed (dated February 18, 2019)