VC0-00959

VC0-00959

The RAD upholds the RPD: the Appellant failed to establish his claimed identity; the purported new documents are not admissible under s.110(4) IRPA because they were not shown to be newly available or explained, and have provenance/inconsistency issues; consequently he is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Citation
VC0-00959
Parties
Appellant Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister; Tribunal: Refugee Appeal Division
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Following RPD Rejection; Decision on Appeal (written)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision upheld that Appellant is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Identity Verification, Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Findings, CBSA Third Party Authorization, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Identity Verification Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Findings CBSA Third Party Authorization +1 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister

Respondent

Refugee Appeal Division

Tribunal

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Following RPD Rejection; Decision on Appeal (written)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant established his claimed identity
  2. 2 Whether new documentary evidence meets admissibility criteria in s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether Appellant's credibility supports refugee status

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upholds the RPD: the Appellant failed to establish his claimed identity; the purported new documents are not admissible under s.110(4) IRPA because they were not shown to be newly available or explained, and have provenance/inconsistency issues; consequently he is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision upheld that Appellant is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection