MB9-05801

MB9-05801

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the majority of the proffered documents did not satisfy s.110(4) IRPA as new evidence, the appellants failed to explain admissibility, and material inconsistencies, omissions and adjusted testimony fatally undermined their credibility on the central risk allegations; accordingly the RPD's rejection of refugee protection was confirmed and no oral hearing was necessary.

Citation
MB9-05801
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons and Decision on Appeal From RPD Rejection of Refugee Protection Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirming rejection of refugee protection is upheld
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence, Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Admissibility of New Evidence Credibility Assessment Standard of Review Procedural Fairness

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons and Decision on Appeal From RPD Rejection of Refugee Protection Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documentary evidence constitutes new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing before the RAD was required

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the majority of the proffered documents did not satisfy s.110(4) IRPA as new evidence, the appellants failed to explain admissibility, and material inconsistencies, omissions and adjusted testimony fatally undermined their credibility on the central risk allegations; accordingly the RPD's rejection of refugee protection was confirmed and no oral hearing was necessary.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirming rejection of refugee protection is upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
  • All proffered documents found not to constitute new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and are excluded from consideration on appeal