MB9-19927

MB9-19927

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found the appellants lacked credibility due to cumulative significant omissions, inconsistencies and contradictions; the proposed new evidence did not satisfy subsection 110(4) IRPA and was inadmissible or irrelevant; on the record there is no serious possibility of persecution under s.96 nor a balance of probabilities personal risk under s.97, so the RPD determination is confirmed.

Citation
MB9-19927
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Prospective Risk, Convention Refugee Determination, State Protection, Section 96 IRPA, Section 97 IRPA, Subsection 110(4) IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Prospective Risk Convention Refugee Determination State Protection +3 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing credibility of appellants
  2. 2 Whether new evidence (affidavit and newspaper articles) met subsection 110(4) IRPA and was admissible on appeal
  3. 3 Whether appellants established a well‑founded fear of persecution under section 96

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found the appellants lacked credibility due to cumulative significant omissions, inconsistencies and contradictions; the proposed new evidence did not satisfy subsection 110(4) IRPA and was inadmissible or irrelevant; on the record there is no serious possibility of persecution under s.96 nor a balance of probabilities personal risk under s.97, so the RPD determination is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and Refugee Protection Division determination confirmed