TB9-23426

TB9-23426

On the balance of probabilities the Appellants failed to establish their identities because their official documents indicate dates of birth that are inherently impossible for siblings born four and a half months apart, their explanations were unreasonable and contradicted by documentary evidence (including NDP requirements for NIC/passport issuance), and their testimony was vague, inconsistent and evolving; therefore the RPD decision rejecting their refugee protection claims for failure to establish identity was correct and is confirmed.

Citation
TB9-23426
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision on Appeal (dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Identity Verification, Credibility Findings, Procedural Fairness and Bias, Admissibility of New Evidence (rule 29), Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Identity Verification Credibility Findings Procedural Fairness and Bias Admissibility of New Evidence (rule 29) Standard of Review

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision on Appeal (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants established their identities on a balance of probabilities
  2. 2 Whether the RPD member was biased or gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias
  3. 3 Whether portions of the Appellants' post-record evidence met Rule 29 requirements

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Appellants failed to establish their identities because their official documents indicate dates of birth that are inherently impossible for siblings born four and a half months apart, their explanations were unreasonable and contradicted by documentary evidence (including NDP requirements for NIC/passport issuance), and their testimony was vague, inconsistent and evolving; therefore the RPD decision rejecting their refugee protection claims for failure to establish identity was correct and is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act