MB8-24503

MB8-24503

The RAD independently reviewed the RPD record and concluded the RPD did not err: material omissions and inconsistencies in the appellants' testimony rebut the presumption of credibility; the photocopied identity card and police diary extract lacked sufficient provenance and probative value to corroborate the central link between incidents; medical reports and bank statements were not admissible under RAD Rule 29 and section 110(4); accordingly the RPD's rejection of the claim was correct and the appeal is dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB8-24503
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division Dismissing the Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admission of New Evidence (rad Rule 29), Standard of Review, Documentary Evidence Weight, Section 97 Refugee Claim
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admission of New Evidence (rad Rule 29) Standard of Review Documentary Evidence Weight Section 97 Refugee Claim

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division Dismissing the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the RAD should admit new medical and bank evidence under RAD Rule 29 and section 110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the contested documents (identity card, police diary extract) corroborate the appellants' narrative

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD independently reviewed the RPD record and concluded the RPD did not err: material omissions and inconsistencies in the appellants' testimony rebut the presumption of credibility; the photocopied identity card and police diary extract lacked sufficient provenance and probative value to corroborate the central link between incidents; medical reports and bank statements were not admissible under RAD Rule 29 and section 110(4); accordingly the RPD's rejection of the claim was correct and the appeal is dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated September 5, 2018 confirmed