MB4-04688

MB4-04688

Because no new evidence was presented to trigger an oral hearing, and the RPD's adverse credibility findings (major omissions, contradictions and implausibilities concerning sect membership, detention, distribution of literature and expropriation) were supported by the RPD record, the RAD will not disturb the RPD decision; the appellant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution on Convention grounds and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB4-04688
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division — Decision (no New Evidence; Oral Hearing Request Denied)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, New Evidence and Hearings (s.110), Standard of Review and Appellate Role of RAD, Membership in Banned Religious Group, Documentary Evidence Authenticity
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness New Evidence and Hearings (s.110) Standard of Review and Appellate Role of RAD Membership in Banned Religious Group +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division — Decision (no New Evidence; Oral Hearing Request Denied)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RAD should hold an oral hearing under s.110(6) given no new evidence
  2. 2 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and supported by the record
  3. 3 Whether the appellant established refugee status as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

Because no new evidence was presented to trigger an oral hearing, and the RPD's adverse credibility findings (major omissions, contradictions and implausibilities concerning sect membership, detention, distribution of literature and expropriation) were supported by the RPD record, the RAD will not disturb the RPD decision; the appellant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution on Convention grounds and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Request for an oral hearing denied
  • RAD confirms RPD determination that appellant is neither a Convention refugee (s.96 IRPA) nor a person in need of protection (s.97(1) IRPA)