TB8-20801

TB8-20801

The RAD dismissed the appeal because, on a balance of probabilities, the RPD correctly found the Appellant not credible as to his alleged political profile—vague testimony about canvassing, inconsistencies about protest attendance, submission of a document found to be fraudulent, and failure to seek available corroboration from the HDP were determinative. Although the RAD admitted a new letter establishing the Appellant is Alevi, that evidence was not determinative and the Appellant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or section 97 risk on the basis of his Alevi faith.

Citation
TB8-20801
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed. Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, New Evidence Admissibility, Religious Minority Risk (alevi), Political Opinion/activity, Corroboration Requirements, Document Authenticity, Psychiatric Evidence and Memory
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment New Evidence Admissibility Religious Minority Risk (alevi) Political Opinion/activity Corroboration Requirements +2 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings regarding the Appellant's alleged political profile and activities with the HDP
  2. 2 Whether new evidence (letter) met subsection 110(4) IRPA and was admissible and determinative
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant's Alevi faith exposes him to a serious possibility of persecution or a section 97 risk

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because, on a balance of probabilities, the RPD correctly found the Appellant not credible as to his alleged political profile—vague testimony about canvassing, inconsistencies about protest attendance, submission of a document found to be fraudulent, and failure to seek available corroboration from the HDP were determinative. Although the RAD admitted a new letter establishing the Appellant is Alevi, that evidence was not determinative and the Appellant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or section 97 risk on the basis of his Alevi faith.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed. Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed.