TB7-21959

TB7-21959

The RPD did not err: the appellants failed to establish identity on the balance of probabilities; the First Witness affidavit was admissible but lacked credibility on key points, the letter did not meet s.110(4), and therefore the RAD confirms the RPD that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-21959
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Second Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; First Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Second Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Immigration and Refugee Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal From RPD Decision; Oral Hearing Held and Final Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Identity, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing, Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Identity Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Oral Hearing Refugee Protection +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Second Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

First Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Second Minor Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration and Refugee Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal From RPD Decision; Oral Hearing Held and Final Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants established their personal identities as Somali citizens and members of the minority clan
  2. 2 Whether proposed new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and is admissible
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in weighing affidavit and testimonial evidence and in its credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD did not err: the appellants failed to establish identity on the balance of probabilities; the First Witness affidavit was admissible but lacked credibility on key points, the letter did not meet s.110(4), and therefore the RAD confirms the RPD that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Confirm RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act