MB3-04163

MB3-04163

The RAD dismisses the appeal because the additional documentary material was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA and, on the merits, the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified, transparent and intelligible; the inconsistencies, implausibilities and lack of corroboration identified by the RPD made its...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MB3-04163
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Refugee Protection Division)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (appeal Heard and Decided)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that the appellant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Deference to First Instance Decision Maker, Hearing on Appeal
Source Language
english
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Deference to First Instance Decision Maker Hearing on Appeal

Source-derived case record

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Refugee Protection Division)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (appeal Heard and Decided)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether documentary evidence presented on appeal is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should hold a hearing under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismisses the appeal because the additional documentary material was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA and, on the merits, the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified, transparent and intelligible; the inconsistencies, implausibilities and lack of corroboration identified by the RPD made its decision reasonable and within the range of acceptable outcomes, so deference is owed and the RPD determination is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that the appellant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision of October 21, 2013 is confirmed.