TB6-16444

TB6-16444

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the proposed new evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA requirements and was therefore not admitted, no oral hearing was warranted, and on the merits the appellants' claims were rejected on cumulative adverse credibility findings (unexplained three‑year delay to seek protection, inconsistencies and lack of reliable evidence of the male appellant's travel to China and return, and unreliable/supporting documents such as the summons), leading to the conclusion there is no serious possibility of persecution or need for protection.

Citation
TB6-16444
Parties
Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (decision on Merits)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Delay in Claiming Refugee Protection, Judicial Notice, Country Conditions, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Delay in Claiming Refugee Protection Judicial Notice Country Conditions +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (female)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (male)

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (decision on Merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new evidence is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether an oral hearing is required under s.110(6) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether appellants are credible regarding travel, marriage and membership in Almighty God

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the proposed new evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA requirements and was therefore not admitted, no oral hearing was warranted, and on the merits the appellants' claims were rejected on cumulative adverse credibility findings (unexplained three‑year delay to seek protection, inconsistencies and lack of reliable evidence of the male appellant's travel to China and return, and unreliable/supporting documents such as the summons), leading to the conclusion there is no serious possibility of persecution or need for protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed.

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA the RAD confirms the RPD decision and dismisses the appeals.