TB9-10700

TB9-10700

Although some instant messaging evidence was admissible under s.110(4) and Singh-Raza, and certain SOGIE-guideline credibility inferences by the RPD were erroneous, the cumulative negative credibility findings (vague pivotal details, inability to recall significant contemporaneous dates, unsupported photographic and documentary evidence) rebut the presumption of truth and leave the Principal Appellant unable to establish on a balance of probabilities that she is bisexual or faces persecution; appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed under correctness standard.

Citation
TB9-10700
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Review of RPD Decision and Admissibility of New Evidence; Decision on Oral Hearing Request
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, New Evidence Admissibility, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (sogie), Gender Related Persecution, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment New Evidence Admissibility Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (sogie) Gender Related Persecution +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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Male Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Review of RPD Decision and Admissibility of New Evidence; Decision on Oral Hearing Request

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and Singh-Raza criteria
  2. 2 Whether an oral hearing was required under s.110(6) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD misapplied SOGIE and Gender Guidelines

Ratio Decidendi

Although some instant messaging evidence was admissible under s.110(4) and Singh-Raza, and certain SOGIE-guideline credibility inferences by the RPD were erroneous, the cumulative negative credibility findings (vague pivotal details, inability to recall significant contemporaneous dates, unsupported photographic and documentary evidence) rebut the presumption of truth and leave the Principal Appellant unable to establish on a balance of probabilities that she is bisexual or faces persecution; appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed under correctness standard.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
  • New evidence partially admitted (instant message screenshots) but given no probative weight; no oral hearing ordered under s.110(6) IRPA