TB4-00762

TB4-00762

The RAD held that the appellants' post‑decision medical and police documents did not satisfy s.110(4) IRPA and even if admitted would have minimal weight; the RPD applied the correct legal test for risk of persecution and its adverse credibility findings were reasonable and within a range of acceptable outcomes; RAD must defer to RPD on factual findings but reviews questions of law for correctness; accordingly the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed.

Citation
TB4-00762
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, State Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Oral Hearing
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility State Protection Gender Based Persecution Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review +1 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence met s.110(4) IRPA and was admissible on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the RPD applied the correct legal test for risk of persecution
  3. 3 Whether the RPD unreasonably failed to apply the Gender Guidelines

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD held that the appellants' post‑decision medical and police documents did not satisfy s.110(4) IRPA and even if admitted would have minimal weight; the RPD applied the correct legal test for risk of persecution and its adverse credibility findings were reasonable and within a range of acceptable outcomes; RAD must defer to RPD on factual findings but reviews questions of law for correctness; accordingly the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA the RAD confirms the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
  • Request for an oral hearing denied