MC3-25162

MC3-25162

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellant's testimony is not credible and he has failed to establish his identity on a balance of probabilities; the proffered DNA evidence is not admitted under s.110(4) IRPA and, in any event, lacks sufficient provenance and credibility; identity being a threshold issue, the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed.

Citation
MC3-25162
Parties
Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal / Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Identity/nationality Determination, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Threshold Issue
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Identity/nationality Determination Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Threshold Issue

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal / Appellant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant is credible
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant established his identity/nationality (Eritrean v. Ethiopian) on a balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether to admit new DNA evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and Raza/Singh criteria

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellant's testimony is not credible and he has failed to establish his identity on a balance of probabilities; the proffered DNA evidence is not admitted under s.110(4) IRPA and, in any event, lacks sufficient provenance and credibility; identity being a threshold issue, the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division affirmed (pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA)