TB9-15853

TB9-15853

The Principal Appellant was found not credible due to evolving and evasive testimony, unexplained omissions (church address), and unreliable supporting affidavits; the new evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA requirements or Raza/Singh criteria; therefore the RPD decision denying refugee protection was upheld under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-15853
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under section 111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Female Genital Mutilation, Credibility, New Evidence Admissibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Documentary Evidence Authenticity
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Female Genital Mutilation Credibility New Evidence Admissibility Internal Flight Alternative Documentary Evidence Authenticity

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Credibility of the Principal Appellant and reliance of associates on her testimony
  3. 3 Weight and authenticity of supporting affidavits

Ratio Decidendi

The Principal Appellant was found not credible due to evolving and evasive testimony, unexplained omissions (church address), and unreliable supporting affidavits; the new evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA requirements or Raza/Singh criteria; therefore the RPD decision denying refugee protection was upheld under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under section 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • New evidence submitted by the Appellants is largely not admitted under s.110(4) IRPA
  • Request for an oral hearing denied