MB7-06635

MB7-06635

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants were not credible: their evidence contained contradictions and implausibilities, they failed to take basic protective measures or to report material facts to authorities, and unsworn new evidence carried minimal weight; consequently they failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution under section 96 or a need for protection under section 97 IRPA, and the appeals were dismissed under s.111(1)(a).

Citation
MB7-06635
Parties
Appellant: Principal appellant (name redacted); Appellant: Female appellant (name redacted); Appellant (minor): Minor son (name redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division From Refugee Protection Division Decision on Credibility; RAD Review and Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD determination of May 29, 2017 confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Risk and Protection Under Sections 96 and 97 IRPA, Procedural Compliance (rad Rules)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Risk and Protection Under Sections 96 and 97 IRPA Procedural Compliance (rad Rules)

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

Parties

Principal appellant (name redacted)

Appellant

Female appellant (name redacted)

Appellant

Minor son (name redacted)

Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division From Refugee Protection Division Decision on Credibility; RAD Review and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether unsworn new evidence should be admitted and its weight
  3. 3 Whether appellants established a risk under section 96 or need for protection under section 97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants were not credible: their evidence contained contradictions and implausibilities, they failed to take basic protective measures or to report material facts to authorities, and unsworn new evidence carried minimal weight; consequently they failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution under section 96 or a need for protection under section 97 IRPA, and the appeals were dismissed under s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD determination of May 29, 2017 confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division decision dated May 29, 2017 confirmed under subsection 111(1)(a) of the IRPA