TB8-11321

TB8-11321

The RAD dismissed the appeal: none of the proposed documents met s.110(4) so no new evidence was admitted; the RPD's material adverse credibility findings (inconsistent addresses, failure to produce visa records, implausible account of a long-term same-sex relationship, and questionable affidavits in light of objective national documentation) were reasonable and dispositive; on the record the Appellants failed to prove the Principal Appellant's sexual orientation or a serious possibility of persecution or risk under ss.96-97 IRPA, and the RPD decision is confirmed under s.111(1)(a).

Citation
TB8-11321
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Sexual Orientation (sogie), Weight and Authenticity of Documentary Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Protection Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Sexual Orientation (sogie) +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new evidence met the s.110(4) test for admissibility
  2. 2 Whether an oral hearing was warranted under s.110(6)
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings regarding the Principal Appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal: none of the proposed documents met s.110(4) so no new evidence was admitted; the RPD's material adverse credibility findings (inconsistent addresses, failure to produce visa records, implausible account of a long-term same-sex relationship, and questionable affidavits in light of objective national documentation) were reasonable and dispositive; on the record the Appellants failed to prove the Principal Appellant's sexual orientation or a serious possibility of persecution or risk under ss.96-97 IRPA, and the RPD decision is confirmed under s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act