TB9-00851

TB9-00851

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified by material inconsistencies, omissions and evolving testimony in the BOC narratives and hearing evidence, the appellants failed to establish inadequate representation or resulting prejudice, most proposed new evidence was inadmissible under IRPA s.110(4), and on the whole record the appellants did not prove they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB9-00851
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, New Evidence Admissibility, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Convention Refugee Determination, Risk of Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness New Evidence Admissibility Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Convention Refugee Determination +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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in rejecting claims for refugee protection based on credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether appellants were denied procedural fairness due to inadequate representation by former counsel
  3. 3 Whether proposed new evidence meets IRPA s.110(4) and Singh/Raza requirements and justifies an oral hearing under s.110(6)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified by material inconsistencies, omissions and evolving testimony in the BOC narratives and hearing evidence, the appellants failed to establish inadequate representation or resulting prejudice, most proposed new evidence was inadmissible under IRPA s.110(4), and on the whole record the appellants did not prove they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division of December 19, 2018 confirmed
  • New evidence largely not admitted under IRPA s.110(4); limited portions of affidavits and certain exhibits relating to alleged inadequate representation admitted only for that issue