TB4-06783

TB4-06783

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the purported new evidence failed the s.110(4) test and was therefore inadmissible, no basis existed to grant an oral hearing under s.110(6), the RPD's adverse credibility findings about the medical documents and travel/smuggling explanation were supported by the evidence...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB4-06783
Parties
Appellant: XXX; Spouse: XXX; Minor Child: XXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From Refugee Protection Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, One Child Policy, Forced Abortion and Sterilization, Oral Hearing Under S.110(6) IRPA
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review One Child Policy Forced Abortion and Sterilization +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXX

Appellant

XXX

Spouse

XXX

Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From Refugee Protection Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Applicable standard of review for RAD appeals
  2. 2 Whether new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and is admissible
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing is required under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the purported new evidence failed the s.110(4) test and was therefore inadmissible, no basis existed to grant an oral hearing under s.110(6), the RPD's adverse credibility findings about the medical documents and travel/smuggling explanation were supported by the evidence and entitled to deference where appropriate, and the country evidence indicates the likely remedy on return would be social compensation fines rather than forced abortion or sterilization; accordingly the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA, the decision of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.