TB4-05865

TB4-05865

The application to reopen was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances supported by new evidence as required by RPD Rule 62(8); alleged inexperience and asserted inadequate representation were unsupported or not exceptional, and there was no evidence the application was provided as required by Rule 63(4).

Citation
TB4-05865
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Application to Reopen Decision
Outcome
Application to reopen dismissed
Legal Topics
Reopening, Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, RPD Rules
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Administrative Law Reopening Natural Justice Procedural Fairness RPD Rules

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Application to Reopen Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exceptional circumstances supported by new evidence exist to allow reopening
  2. 2 Whether there was a failure to observe a principle of natural justice
  3. 3 Whether the applicant complied with Rule 63(4) requiring service of the application to reopen

Ratio Decidendi

The application to reopen was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances supported by new evidence as required by RPD Rule 62(8); alleged inexperience and asserted inadequate representation were unsupported or not exceptional, and there was no evidence the application was provided as required by Rule 63(4).

Court Disposition

Application to reopen dismissed

Orders

  • Application to reopen the refugee protection claim dismissed