TB5-05412

TB5-05412

The RAD confirms the RPD: the proposed new identity documents were not shown to meet s.110(4) IRPA and therefore are not admitted; the RPD's credibility findings—grounded in submission of counterfeit/apocryphal identity documents, lack of corroborating court records, implausible travel and narrative details—are upheld; on an independent assessment the appellant failed to prove he is bisexual or that he faces a serious risk on that basis in Cameroon, so the appeal is dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB5-05412
Parties
Appellant / Person Subject of Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (final Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Identity Documents, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing, Convention Refugee Status, Procedural Standard of RAD
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Identity Documents Admissibility of New Evidence Oral Hearing Convention Refugee Status +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Subject of Appeal

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (final Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new identity evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and should be admitted
  2. 2 Whether credibility findings of the RPD were erroneous
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD: the proposed new identity documents were not shown to meet s.110(4) IRPA and therefore are not admitted; the RPD's credibility findings—grounded in submission of counterfeit/apocryphal identity documents, lack of corroborating court records, implausible travel and narrative details—are upheld; on an independent assessment the appellant failed to prove he is bisexual or that he faces a serious risk on that basis in Cameroon, so the appeal is dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • New identity documents not admitted as evidence (s.110(4) IRPA)
  • Request for an oral hearing pursuant to s.110(6) IRPA denied