TB6-07909

TB6-07909

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellants' evidence was not credible, they knowingly tendered fraudulent or unreliable documents, the purported new evidence was inadmissible or unverifiable and, even if admitted, would not raise a central serious credibility issue or establish a real risk on a Convention ground; accordingly their refugee claims fail.

Citation
TB6-07909
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (appeal to Refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (confirmation of Rpd)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Fraudulent Documents, Oral Hearing Jurisdiction, Convention Refugee Determination, Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Fraudulent Documents Oral Hearing Jurisdiction +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (appeal to Refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (confirmation of Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants' claims are credible
  2. 2 Whether new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and should be admitted
  3. 3 Whether the RAD must grant an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellants' evidence was not credible, they knowingly tendered fraudulent or unreliable documents, the purported new evidence was inadmissible or unverifiable and, even if admitted, would not raise a central serious credibility issue or establish a real risk on a Convention ground; accordingly their refugee claims fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Confirm the decision of the Refugee Protection Division and dismiss the appeals pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
  • No oral hearing granted; proposed new evidence not admitted or afforded weight