TB8-18023

TB8-18023

The RAD dismissed the appeals because the purported new evidence was not admissible under s.110(4), the Appellants failed to establish a sur place claim or a substantial change in country conditions since arrival, the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified given unreliable documentary evidence (including an unauthenticated 'exit visa') and lack of nexus to persecution in Yemen, and the Appellants did not show a personalized risk above generalised risk under s.97; accordingly the RPD decision was confirmed under s.111(1)(a).

Citation
TB8-18023
Parties
Principal Appellant: Principal Appellant (anonymized); Spousal Appellant: Spousal Appellant (anonymized); Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision on Appeal (rad Decision)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Sur Place Claims, Personalized Risk (s.97), New Evidence Admissibility (s.110(4)), Oral Hearing Threshold (s.110(6)), RAD Procedural Rules (rule 3(3)(g), Rule 29), Confirmation of RPD Decision (s.111(1)(a)), Document Genuineness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Findings Sur Place Claims Personalized Risk (s.97) New Evidence Admissibility (s.110(4)) +4 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

Principal Appellant (anonymized)

Principal Appellant

Spousal Appellant (anonymized)

Spousal Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision on Appeal (rad Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the affidavit and article new evidence admissible under s.110(4) IRPA?
  2. 2 Did the RPD fail to consider a sur place claim?
  3. 3 Has the situation in Yemen changed sufficiently since arrival to ground protection?

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeals because the purported new evidence was not admissible under s.110(4), the Appellants failed to establish a sur place claim or a substantial change in country conditions since arrival, the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified given unreliable documentary evidence (including an unauthenticated 'exit visa') and lack of nexus to persecution in Yemen, and the Appellants did not show a personalized risk above generalised risk under s.97; accordingly the RPD decision was confirmed under s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • The appeals are dismissed and the RPD decision is confirmed.
  • No new evidence is admitted; the affidavit is treated as submissions and the article is rejected as inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA.