VB9-08460

VB9-08460

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD, on independent assessment, found the RPD's adverse credibility findings were open to it given inconsistent and unreliable testimony about political membership and participation, the supporting affidavit lacked sufficient reliability, the post‑RPD country reports admitted as new evidence did not undermine credibility or show a serious forward‑looking risk, and the evidence did not establish a real risk under ss.96‑97 IRPA.

Citation
VB9-08460
Parties
Appellant (person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Under Irpa) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admission of New Evidence, Country Conditions, Forward Looking Risk (ss.96 97 Irpa), Convention Refugee Determination, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law International Protection Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admission of New Evidence Country Conditions Forward Looking Risk (ss.96 97 Irpa) Convention Refugee Determination +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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Under Irpa) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to admit post‑RPD country reports as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its adverse credibility findings regarding the appellant's testimony on OFC vs OLF
  3. 3 Whether the appellant faces a serious forward‑looking risk of persecution on return to Ethiopia under ss.96-97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD, on independent assessment, found the RPD's adverse credibility findings were open to it given inconsistent and unreliable testimony about political membership and participation, the supporting affidavit lacked sufficient reliability, the post‑RPD country reports admitted as new evidence did not undermine credibility or show a serious forward‑looking risk, and the evidence did not establish a real risk under ss.96‑97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Admitted as new evidence: two post‑RPD news articles (BBC and New York Times)
  • Oral hearing denied