MB9-20982

MB9-20982

The RAD dismissed the appeal: the RPD did not breach natural justice; the Appellants' proposed new evidence did not meet the strict s.110(4) IRPA tests and was not admitted; on independent review of all admissible evidence the Principal Appellant's account was not credible (material unexplained contradictions regarding school attendance, presence during an alleged attack, documentary inconsistencies and unverifiable communications), and therefore the Appellants failed to prove a well‑founded fear of persecution.

Citation
MB9-20982
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellants: Associate Appellants (multiple); Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Rejection
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Natural Justice, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Sexual Orientation Claims (sogie), Documentary Weight
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Natural Justice Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Sexual Orientation Claims (sogie) +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

Associate Appellants (multiple)

Associate Appellants

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Rejection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD breached natural justice by failing to put credibility issues to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether documents and text messages were properly weighed and whether their provenance required confrontation
  3. 3 Whether new evidence met the strict statutory tests in s.110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal: the RPD did not breach natural justice; the Appellants' proposed new evidence did not meet the strict s.110(4) IRPA tests and was not admitted; on independent review of all admissible evidence the Principal Appellant's account was not credible (material unexplained contradictions regarding school attendance, presence during an alleged attack, documentary inconsistencies and unverifiable communications), and therefore the Appellants failed to prove a well‑founded fear of persecution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed