TB5-00019

TB5-00019

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the proffered new evidence did not meet statutory admissibility under s.110(4) IRPA or was reasonably obtainable before the RPD; there was insufficient credible, corroborative evidence that the appellants were Baptists and the IFA of Kyiv or Lviv was reasonable and safe, so the appellants would not face persecution; accordingly the RPD decision is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB5-00019
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Appellant Spouse: XXXX XXXX; Appellants Minors: XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Following RPD Refusal; RAD Disposition and Admissibility Determination of New Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Findings, Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal, Convention Refugee Determination, Standard of Appellate Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Findings Admissibility of New Evidence on Appeal Convention Refugee Determination Standard of Appellate Review

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Spouse

XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX

Appellants Minors

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Following RPD Refusal; RAD Disposition and Admissibility Determination of New Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence met statutory admissibility under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether RPD erred in credibility findings regarding the appellants' religious membership
  3. 3 Whether internal flight alternative (IFA) was reasonable and available

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the proffered new evidence did not meet statutory admissibility under s.110(4) IRPA or was reasonably obtainable before the RPD; there was insufficient credible, corroborative evidence that the appellants were Baptists and the IFA of Kyiv or Lviv was reasonable and safe, so the appellants would not face persecution; accordingly the RPD decision is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • New evidence submitted on appeal not admitted under s.110(4) IRPA
  • Request for an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA denied