TB7-22894

TB7-22894

The RAD found no material or determinative errors in the RPD decision: the appellants' harms were criminal/extortionate acts without nexus to a Convention ground, the principal appellant was not credible, submitted documentary evidence was unprobative and could be fabricated, no admissible new evidence was filed and statutory requirements for an oral hearing were unmet; accordingly the RAD confirmed the RPD decision and dismissed the appeal under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-22894
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Refugee Protection Division decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Protection Claim, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Protection Claim Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants established nexus to a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether the principal appellant had a subjective and well‑founded fear of persecution
  3. 3 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in assessing credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found no material or determinative errors in the RPD decision: the appellants' harms were criminal/extortionate acts without nexus to a Convention ground, the principal appellant was not credible, submitted documentary evidence was unprobative and could be fabricated, no admissible new evidence was filed and statutory requirements for an oral hearing were unmet; accordingly the RAD confirmed the RPD decision and dismissed the appeal under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Refugee Protection Division decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • No new evidence accepted for the appeal