TB5-03609

TB5-03609

No new evidence was filed; accordingly RAD proceeded without an oral hearing, reviewed the record, found the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and therefore confirmed the RPD decision that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB5-03609
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.aXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)XXXX(a.k.a.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.a.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)XXXX(a.k.a. XXXX XXXX)XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.a.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX); Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by the Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Oral Hearing Application, New Evidence, Standard of Review, Particular Social Group
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Credibility Findings Oral Hearing Application New Evidence Standard of Review Particular Social Group

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.aXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)XXXX(a.k.a.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.a.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)XXXX(a.k.a. XXXX XXXX)XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.a.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX)

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by the Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RAD must hold an oral hearing under s.110(6) given alleged new evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants submitted new evidence that was not before the RPD
  3. 3 Whether the RPD ignored documentary evidence and news reports

Ratio Decidendi

No new evidence was filed; accordingly RAD proceeded without an oral hearing, reviewed the record, found the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and therefore confirmed the RPD decision that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of IRPA.

Orders

  • Oral hearing denied; appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed