TB8-30394

TB8-30394

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the tendered new evidence did not meet s.110(4) criteria (it did not arise after the RPD decision and was reasonably available earlier), and on a balance of probabilities the RPD's adverse credibility findings (omissions, inconsistencies, failure to seek protection abroad, lack of corroboration) were proper; therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and face no serious risk on return.

Citation
TB8-30394
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Second Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision of Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision affirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110 Irpa), SOGIE Guidelines, Failure to Seek Protection Abroad, Agents of Persecution, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law LGBTQ Rights Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110 Irpa) SOGIE Guidelines +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Second Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision of Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence tendered under s.110(4) IRPA is admissible
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility and plausibility findings
  3. 3 Whether the RPD breached Chairperson's Guideline 9 (SOGIE) or Guideline 4

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the tendered new evidence did not meet s.110(4) criteria (it did not arise after the RPD decision and was reasonably available earlier), and on a balance of probabilities the RPD's adverse credibility findings (omissions, inconsistencies, failure to seek protection abroad, lack of corroboration) were proper; therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and face no serious risk on return.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision affirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • Application to admit new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA denied