MB9-06357

MB9-06357

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found the appellant not credible; trustworthy documentary country evidence in the National Documentation Package contradicts the central allegation of forced recruitment, the new evidence submitted to RAD was largely inadmissible or not credible, and the appellant therefore failed on the balance of probabilities to establish he is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-06357
Parties
Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal / Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Country Conditions Evidence, Convention Refugee Determination, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Country Conditions Evidence Convention Refugee Determination Standard of Review

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal / Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellant not credible
  2. 2 Whether new evidence should be admitted under RAD Rules and IRPA
  3. 3 Whether documentary country evidence rebuts the appellant's sworn testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found the appellant not credible; trustworthy documentary country evidence in the National Documentation Package contradicts the central allegation of forced recruitment, the new evidence submitted to RAD was largely inadmissible or not credible, and the appellant therefore failed on the balance of probabilities to establish he is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; Refugee Protection Division determination confirmed that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection