TC1-03236

TC1-03236

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported: the appellant's testimony was vague, inconsistent and evolving; support letters did not corroborate leadership or that he was wanted by police; the four items tendered as new evidence did not arise after the RPD decision and are inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA; repeated re‑availments and a long delay in claiming undermined the subjective fear; and there is insufficient objective evidence that he would be identified by authorities or face persecution on return, therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TC1-03236
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (final)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, New Evidence Admissibility, Well Founded Fear of Persecution, Re Availment, Delay in Claiming
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Administrative Law Credibility Assessment New Evidence Admissibility Well Founded Fear of Persecution Re Availment Delay in Claiming

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was sufficiently a leader/organiser of protests to be at risk of arrest for political activity
  2. 2 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable
  3. 3 Whether documents submitted after the RPD decision qualify as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported: the appellant's testimony was vague, inconsistent and evolving; support letters did not corroborate leadership or that he was wanted by police; the four items tendered as new evidence did not arise after the RPD decision and are inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA; repeated re‑availments and a long delay in claiming undermined the subjective fear; and there is insufficient objective evidence that he would be identified by authorities or face persecution on return, therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed