TB9-34895

TB9-34895

The RAD confirms the RPD decision: the appellant's testimony was inconsistent, evasive and implausible on core points (lease, alleged affair, detention, threats and documents); the passport evidence was not shown to meet s.110(4) IRPA and is not admitted; the appellant lacked subjective fear given failure to claim...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB9-34895
Parties
Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Reasons for Decision Confirming RPD Credibility Finding
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Standard of Review, Risk Assessment on Return, Failure to Claim Asylum
Source Language
english
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Standard of Review Risk Assessment on Return Failure to Claim Asylum

Source-derived case record

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Reasons for Decision Confirming RPD Credibility Finding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified
  2. 2 Whether new evidence (expired passport with US visa) meets s.110(4) IRPA and should be admitted
  3. 3 Whether failure to claim asylum in the US undermines subjective fear

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD decision: the appellant's testimony was inconsistent, evasive and implausible on core points (lease, alleged affair, detention, threats and documents); the passport evidence was not shown to meet s.110(4) IRPA and is not admitted; the appellant lacked subjective fear given failure to claim asylum in the US; on the totality of evidence there is no real risk on return to Sri Lanka, so the refugee protection claim fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • New evidence (expired passport with US visa) not admitted under s.110(4) IRPA
  • No oral hearing required under s.110(6) IRPA