TB9-14883

TB9-14883

The RAD confirms the RPD because the appellants failed to rebut the strong presumption of competent representation under the two‑part test for counsel incompetence and failed to overcome determinative material credibility findings; admitted new evidence did not raise a serious credibility issue central to the claim nor justify an oral hearing; therefore appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB9-14883
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Natural Justice, Counsel Incompetence, Convention Refugee Status, Persons in Need of Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing Request
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Natural Justice Counsel Incompetence Convention Refugee Status Persons in Need of Protection +2 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether former counsel's incompetence amounted to a breach of natural justice
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the appellants
  3. 3 Whether new evidence should be admitted and whether it justifies an oral hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD because the appellants failed to rebut the strong presumption of competent representation under the two‑part test for counsel incompetence and failed to overcome determinative material credibility findings; admitted new evidence did not raise a serious credibility issue central to the claim nor justify an oral hearing; therefore appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
  • New evidence (affidavit, photos, former counsel response) admitted on appeal but did not warrant an oral hearing