TB6-07733

TB6-07733

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the principal appellant's multiple voluntary returns to Nepal after 2006 (re-availment) materially undermined his claimed subjective fear and overall credibility; the newly admitted evidence, while meeting s.110(4) timing/availability, lacked sufficient probative weight (unverified police letter, potentially fraudulent documents, unsubstantiated NGO letter) and would not change the outcome, so the RPD determination that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection stands.

Citation
TB6-07733
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (rad Confirms Rpd)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Re Availment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Oral Hearing Discretion
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Re Availment Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Oral Hearing Discretion

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (rad Confirms Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in finding the principal appellant lacks a subjective fear of persecution
  3. 3 Whether there is a viable internal flight alternative in Kathmandu

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the principal appellant's multiple voluntary returns to Nepal after 2006 (re-availment) materially undermined his claimed subjective fear and overall credibility; the newly admitted evidence, while meeting s.110(4) timing/availability, lacked sufficient probative weight (unverified police letter, potentially fraudulent documents, unsubstantiated NGO letter) and would not change the outcome, so the RPD determination that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.