TB8-05498

TB8-05498

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the determinative issue was credibility; the corroborative documents submitted by the appellants contained unexplained inconsistencies, misspellings and alterations that rendered them unreliable on a balance of probabilities; most of the proferred new evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4); there was no breach of procedural fairness in not confronting appellants about their own documents; therefore appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TB8-05498
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (husband): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (son): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division — Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence (s.110(4)), Convention Refugee Definition, Persons in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness Admissibility of Fresh Evidence (s.110(4)) Convention Refugee Definition Persons in Need of Protection

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (husband)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (son)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division — Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence tendered under s.110(4) IRPA is admissible
  2. 2 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness by not confronting appellants about purported document defects
  3. 3 Whether the appellants established a serious possibility of persecution or need for protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the determinative issue was credibility; the corroborative documents submitted by the appellants contained unexplained inconsistencies, misspellings and alterations that rendered them unreliable on a balance of probabilities; most of the proferred new evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4); there was no breach of procedural fairness in not confronting appellants about their own documents; therefore appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

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