TB9-28137

TB9-28137

On independent review applying the correctness standard the RAD confirmed the RPD: most proffered post‑decision documents either failed credibility or relevance thresholds under s.110(4) IRPA or did not corroborate the central allegations; material omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies in the principal appellant's testimony and contemporaneous documents (including the ultimatum letter, police report and media report) justified adverse credibility findings and undermined the claim that the alleged kidnapping and FGM threats occurred as described; the US‑citizen minor was not shown to face a risk in the United States; the new evidence did not raise a serious issue warranting an oral...

Citation
TB9-28137
Parties
Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX et al.
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division From Refugee Protection Division Decision; Reasons and Decision Issued
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Credibility Assessment, Admission of New Evidence, Best Interests of the Child, Oral Hearing Under S.110(6) IRPA, Statutory Review Under S.111(1)(a) IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Protection Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Credibility Assessment Admission of New Evidence +3 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX et al.

Appellants

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division From Refugee Protection Division Decision; Reasons and Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Request for oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of principal appellant regarding alleged kidnapping and FGM threats

Ratio Decidendi

On independent review applying the correctness standard the RAD confirmed the RPD: most proffered post‑decision documents either failed credibility or relevance thresholds under s.110(4) IRPA or did not corroborate the central allegations; material omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies in the principal appellant's testimony and contemporaneous documents (including the ultimatum letter, police report and media report) justified adverse credibility findings and undermined the claim that the alleged kidnapping and FGM threats occurred as described; the US‑citizen minor was not shown to face a risk in the United States; the new evidence did not raise a serious issue warranting an oral...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • Certain documents submitted as new evidence were admitted (medical reports, affidavits and police report described in reasons) and others excluded as lacking credibility or provenance