MC2-03703

MC2-03703

The RAD affirms the RPD: appellants failed to meet the balance of probabilities to establish credible denunciations and credible threats or to show a profile that would give rise to a serious possibility of persecution; the RPD was justified in analyzing under s.96 (political opinion nexus); admitted post‑decision evidence did not materially alter credibility or risk findings and did not trigger an oral hearing under s.110(6); appeal is dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Citation
MC2-03703
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Final Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Country Conditions, Section 96 IRPA (convention Refugees), Section 97(1)(b) IRPA (persons in Need of Protection), Procedural Fairness, Risk Assessment, Oral Hearing Under S.110(6) IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Country Conditions Section 96 IRPA (convention Refugees) Section 97(1)(b) IRPA (persons in Need of 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 6 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Final Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings regarding appellants' allegations of denunciation and threats
  2. 2 Whether the RPD should have assessed claims under s.97(1)(b) IRPA in addition to s.96 IRPA (nexus) and whether failure to do so breached procedural fairness
  3. 3 Admissibility of post‑decision/new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA, Rule 29 and Singh factors (credibility, relevance, newness)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirms the RPD: appellants failed to meet the balance of probabilities to establish credible denunciations and credible threats or to show a profile that would give rise to a serious possibility of persecution; the RPD was justified in analyzing under s.96 (political opinion nexus); admitted post‑decision evidence did not materially alter credibility or risk findings and did not trigger an oral hearing under s.110(6); appeal is dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Confirm RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA