TB7-18070

TB7-18070

RAD confirmed RPD: the three proposed newspaper articles were inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA, Appellants failed to provide reliable evidence of personal persecution based on Shia religion, gender, or love of music, and re‑availment (returns to Saudi Arabia) and an unexplained delay in filing (18 months) undermined subjective fear and credibility; therefore Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB7-18070
Parties
Appellant Principal: Principal Appellant (redacted); Appellant Co‑appellant: Co‑Appellant (redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Credibility Assessment, New Evidence Admissibility, Re‑availment, Delay in Claiming, Religious Persecution, Gender‑based Persecution, Persecution for Cultural Activity
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Refugee Protection Credibility Assessment New Evidence Admissibility Re‑availment Delay in Claiming Religious Persecution +2 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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (redacted)

Appellant Principal

Co‑Appellant (redacted)

Appellant Co‑appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of new evidence under subsection 110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether Appellants established well‑founded fear of persecution based on Shia religion
  3. 3 Whether Principal Appellant established gender‑based persecution

Ratio Decidendi

RAD confirmed RPD: the three proposed newspaper articles were inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA, Appellants failed to provide reliable evidence of personal persecution based on Shia religion, gender, or love of music, and re‑availment (returns to Saudi Arabia) and an unexplained delay in filing (18 months) undermined subjective fear and credibility; therefore Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and Refugee Protection Division decision of July 21, 2017 confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.