TB6-13148

TB6-13148

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant's material omissions and inconsistencies in the sworn BOC and testimony (notably the uncorroborated stabbing and omitted severe military beatings), combined with lack of new documentary evidence and the appellant's weak knowledge of Christian doctrine, fatally undermined credibility; the oral hearing was not warranted under s.110(6) IRPA and the sur place claim was not established, therefore the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TB6-13148
Parties
Appellant / Person Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, Sur Place, Oral Hearing Request, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Sur Place Oral Hearing Request Procedural Fairness

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellant not credible due to omissions in the Basis of Claim (BOC) and testimony
  2. 2 Whether the RAD should grant an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA where no new evidence was filed
  3. 3 Whether a sur place claim is established

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant's material omissions and inconsistencies in the sworn BOC and testimony (notably the uncorroborated stabbing and omitted severe military beatings), combined with lack of new documentary evidence and the appellant's weak knowledge of Christian doctrine, fatally undermined credibility; the oral hearing was not warranted under s.110(6) IRPA and the sur place claim was not established, therefore the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • Request for an oral hearing denied under s.110(6) IRPA