TB6-12220

TB6-12220

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the appellants failed to prove conversion or past/future persecution and their proposed new evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA (was not shown to be new or reasonably unavailable) and/or lacked credibility and probative value; the RPD's credibility findings were within its advantage and were supported by the record; therefore the appeals were dismissed.

Citation
TB6-12220
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision on Appeal (rad Confirmed RPD and Dismissed Appeals)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
New Evidence Admissibility (s.110(4)), Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review / Deference, Internal Flight Alternative, Religious Conversion / Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law New Evidence Admissibility (s.110(4)) Credibility Assessment Standard of Review / Deference Internal Flight Alternative Religious Conversion / Persecution

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision on Appeal (rad Confirmed RPD and Dismissed Appeals)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and was admissible on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings regarding conversion to Shia Islam
  3. 3 Whether there was a viable internal flight alternative (IFA)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the appellants failed to prove conversion or past/future persecution and their proposed new evidence did not meet s.110(4) IRPA (was not shown to be new or reasonably unavailable) and/or lacked credibility and probative value; the RPD's credibility findings were within its advantage and were supported by the record; therefore the appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA the RAD confirms the RPD decision and dismisses the appeals
  • Request for admission of new evidence denied; none of the proposed documents admitted