TB7-18416

TB7-18416

The RAD dismissed the appeal: the post‑decision affidavit and Maoist Threat Letter were inadmissible as new evidence because they lacked credibility, were suspiciously timed and bore indicia of possible forgery; applying Rasaratnam the RAD concluded on the balance of probabilities that Kathmandu is a viable Internal Flight Alternative because the persecuting Biplav faction lacks demonstrated nationwide operational reach and the Appellants would not face undue hardship relocating there; therefore the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed.

Citation
TB7-18416
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (associate): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division: Admissibility of New Evidence, Request for Oral Hearing, and Review of Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Oral Hearing Request
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination Oral Hearing Request

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (associate)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division: Admissibility of New Evidence, Request for Oral Hearing, and Review of Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the documents submitted on appeal meet the requirements of s.110(4) IRPA and the adapted Raza/Singh factors
  2. 2 Whether the Maoist Threat Letter and subsequent affidavit are credible and admissible as new evidence
  3. 3 Whether Kathmandu constitutes a viable Internal Flight Alternative under the two‑prong Rasaratnam test

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal: the post‑decision affidavit and Maoist Threat Letter were inadmissible as new evidence because they lacked credibility, were suspiciously timed and bore indicia of possible forgery; applying Rasaratnam the RAD concluded on the balance of probabilities that Kathmandu is a viable Internal Flight Alternative because the persecuting Biplav faction lacks demonstrated nationwide operational reach and the Appellants would not face undue hardship relocating there; therefore the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • New evidence (affidavit and Maoist Threat Letter) not admitted on appeal
  • Request for oral hearing denied under s.110(6) IRPA