TB9-01674

TB9-01674

On independent review the RAD found the Appellants' core allegations not credible due to material inconsistencies, omissions and unreliable documentary evidence; the purported new police and medical reports were not authenticated and contradicted prior statements and thus failed s.110(4) and (6); failure to seek protection in the United States further undermined subjective fear — accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB9-01674
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of IRPA; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, State Protection, Failure to Seek Protection En Route, Guidelines for Women and Child Claimants
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence State Protection Failure to Seek Protection En Route Guidelines for Women and Child Claimants

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants' evidence is credible and establishes a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether new documentary evidence is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA and whether an oral hearing should be granted under s.110(6) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether failure to seek asylum in the United States undermines subjective fear

Ratio Decidendi

On independent review the RAD found the Appellants' core allegations not credible due to material inconsistencies, omissions and unreliable documentary evidence; the purported new police and medical reports were not authenticated and contradicted prior statements and thus failed s.110(4) and (6); failure to seek protection in the United States further undermined subjective fear — accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of IRPA; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of IRPA
  • New evidence (police and medical reports) rejected as inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA