TB8-01280

TB8-01280

The RAD applied the correctness standard, found material and numerous inconsistencies in the Principal Appellant's account of the kidnapping and hiding (including multiple conflicting dates and differing descriptions of events), concluded key documentary evidence should have been produced to the RPD and thus did not meet s.110(4) for new evidence, found the allegations inconsistent with country documentation regarding family resistance to female circumcision, and therefore held the appellants failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution; accordingly the RPD decision was confirmed.

Citation
TB8-01280
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant; Appellant: Minor Appellant
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by the Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Refusal of Refugee Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Refusal of Refugee Protection Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Assessment Standard of Review Country Conditions

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant

Appellant

Minor Appellant

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by the Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Credibility assessment of the Principal Appellant's kidnapping and hiding allegations
  3. 3 Appropriate standard of review for RPD findings (correctness v. reasonableness)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD applied the correctness standard, found material and numerous inconsistencies in the Principal Appellant's account of the kidnapping and hiding (including multiple conflicting dates and differing descriptions of events), concluded key documentary evidence should have been produced to the RPD and thus did not meet s.110(4) for new evidence, found the allegations inconsistent with country documentation regarding family resistance to female circumcision, and therefore held the appellants failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution; accordingly the RPD decision was confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
  • Most proposed new evidence rejected under s.110(4) IRPA; paragraphs 7 and 8 of the mother‑in‑law affidavit and accompanying photographs admitted; all other proposed new evidence not admitted.