TB9-28503

TB9-28503

The appeals are dismissed because the RAD found on independent analysis that the RPD did not err: the Court Order submitted by the appellants is not genuine and is fraudulent which taints the appellants' evidence; the appellants failed to establish they are genuine Christian converts; the proposed new church letter did not meet s.110(4) IRPA and would not be new or relevant; the gender ground was not advanced below and was unexplained on appeal; and there is no established sur place risk. The RPD decision is confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-28503
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Spousal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal After RPD Refusal; No Oral Hearing Held
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence Under S.110(4) IRPA, Sur Place Claims, Gender Based Claims, Document Authenticity and Fraud, Adverse Credibility Findings
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Under S.110(4) IRPA Sur Place Claims Gender Based Claims +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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Spousal Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal After RPD Refusal; No Oral Hearing Held

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RPD erred in adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether Appellants are genuine Christian converts
  3. 3 Admissibility and probative value of post-decision church letter under s.110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals are dismissed because the RAD found on independent analysis that the RPD did not err: the Court Order submitted by the appellants is not genuine and is fraudulent which taints the appellants' evidence; the appellants failed to establish they are genuine Christian converts; the proposed new church letter did not meet s.110(4) IRPA and would not be new or relevant; the gender ground was not advanced below and was unexplained on appeal; and there is no established sur place risk. The RPD decision is confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division decision confirmed