MB7-00638

MB7-00638

Having reviewed the transcript, the RAD found the interpreter's performance was adequate and the RPD ensured the appellant understood the proceedings; there was no breach of procedural fairness and no new evidence to warrant a re-hearing, therefore the RPD decision and credibility finding stand.

Citation
MB7-00638
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (decision Rendered)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Interpreter/translation Adequacy, Credibility Assessment, Refugee Status Determination, Standard of Review
Source Language
English

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (decision Rendered)

  1. 1 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness by refusing to adjourn to allow the appellant to rewrite her Basis of Claim with a new interpreter
  2. 2 Whether poor quality of interpretation rendered the RPD decision unfair or unreliable
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should admit new evidence or order a new hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Having reviewed the transcript, the RAD found the interpreter's performance was adequate and the RPD ensured the appellant understood the proceedings; there was no breach of procedural fairness and no new evidence to warrant a re-hearing, therefore the RPD decision and credibility finding stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed under subsection 111(1) of the IRPA
  • The RPD determination that the appellant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 and not a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA is confirmed