MB7-01380

MB7-01380

The RPD's adverse credibility findings were correct and determinative: the appellant's lengthy unexplained delay in claiming protection, material omissions and inconsistencies between written accounts, testimony and subsequent affidavits, amendments made only after Minister's credibility notice, and the opportunistic production of explicit videos in response to those weaknesses collectively undermine the claim; the videos were admitted as new evidence but were not dispositive and did not justify an oral hearing; therefore the RAD confirms the RPD and dismisses the appeal under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB7-01380
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Re Determination Following Federal Court Remittal; Final RAD Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms the RPD determination that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Oral Hearing Requirement (s.110(6) Irpa), Delay in Claiming Protection, SOGIE (sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) Guidelines, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Oral Hearing Requirement (s.110(6) Irpa) Delay in Claiming Protection +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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Re Determination Following Federal Court Remittal; Final RAD Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is credible as to bisexuality and persecution fear
  2. 2 Whether the videos and affidavit constitute new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing on the new evidence is required under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's adverse credibility findings were correct and determinative: the appellant's lengthy unexplained delay in claiming protection, material omissions and inconsistencies between written accounts, testimony and subsequent affidavits, amendments made only after Minister's credibility notice, and the opportunistic production of explicit videos in response to those weaknesses collectively undermine the claim; the videos were admitted as new evidence but were not dispositive and did not justify an oral hearing; therefore the RAD confirms the RPD and dismisses the appeal under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms the RPD determination that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RAD confirms RPD decision (February 2, 2017) and dismisses appeal pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA