TB8-16724

TB8-16724

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings because numerous cumulative inconsistencies, implausibilities and unreliable supporting documents outweighed the limited positive evidence; the Federal Court‑ordered new evidence was admitted but addressed only a small part of credibility and did not justify an oral hearing, therefore the RPD did not err and its decision was confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB8-16724
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (remitted Redetermination) / Remitted by Federal Court for Redetermination by Refugee Appeal Division (second Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Sexual Orientation Identity (sogie), Admissibility of New Evidence, Judicial Review Remittal, Oral Hearing Requirement
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Sexual Orientation Identity (sogie) Admissibility of New Evidence Judicial Review Remittal Oral Hearing Requirement

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (remitted Redetermination) / Remitted by Federal Court for Redetermination by Refugee Appeal Division (second Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellant not credible
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's sexual orientation as a gay man was established
  3. 3 Admissibility of proposed new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and application of Raza/Singh factors

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings because numerous cumulative inconsistencies, implausibilities and unreliable supporting documents outweighed the limited positive evidence; the Federal Court‑ordered new evidence was admitted but addressed only a small part of credibility and did not justify an oral hearing, therefore the RPD did not err and its decision was confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • The RPD decision that the appellant is neither a refugee nor a person in need of protection is confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA