TB8-02456

TB8-02456

The RAD excluded the proffered documents because they did not satisfy subsection 110(4) IRPA as the materials predated the RPD decision and were reasonably available or in the appellants' possession; absent admissible new evidence the RAD found no reversible error in the RPD's credibility and fact findings and therefore dismissed the appeal, concluding the principal and minor appellants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA and the female appellant is excluded under Article 1E and s.98 IRPA.

Citation
TB8-02456
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence and Merits; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision upheld
Legal Topics
New Evidence Admissibility, Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Exclusion Under Article 1 E, Oral Hearing Request, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law New Evidence Admissibility Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination Exclusion Under Article 1 E Oral Hearing Request +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Admissibility of New Evidence and Merits; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documentary evidence meets subsection 110(4) IRPA and is admissible as new evidence
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings and in its consideration of the evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants meet the definition of Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA or are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD excluded the proffered documents because they did not satisfy subsection 110(4) IRPA as the materials predated the RPD decision and were reasonably available or in the appellants' possession; absent admissible new evidence the RAD found no reversible error in the RPD's credibility and fact findings and therefore dismissed the appeal, concluding the principal and minor appellants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA and the female appellant is excluded under Article 1E and s.98 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision upheld

Orders

  • New documentary evidence excluded under subsection 110(4) IRPA
  • Request for oral hearing denied