MB5-05029

MB5-05029

RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant was found not credible on central allegations (employment, duties, dates and corroboration), provided contradictory testimony and failed to produce corroboration after long employment; no new evidence was before RAD so no hearing under s.110(6) and the applicant failed to establish a need for protection.

Citation
MB5-05029
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal; Request for Hearing Under S.110(6) Denied
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Standard of Review, Appeal Procedure Under IRPA, Convention Refugee Definition, Request for RAD Hearing (s.110(6))
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Standard of Review Appeal Procedure Under IRPA Convention Refugee Definition +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal; Request for Hearing Under S.110(6) Denied

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellant not credible
  2. 2 Whether the appellant met the threshold for a RAD hearing under subsection 110(6) IRPA (new evidence requirement)
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative exists if the appellant were credible

Ratio Decidendi

RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant was found not credible on central allegations (employment, duties, dates and corroboration), provided contradictory testimony and failed to produce corroboration after long employment; no new evidence was before RAD so no hearing under s.110(6) and the applicant failed to establish a need for protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Request for a hearing before the RAD under subsection 110(6) IRPA denied
  • Refugee Protection Division decision upheld: appellant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA