TB6-19138

TB6-19138

The RAD confirmed the RPD because although the newly tendered affidavit was admissible under s.110(4), the totality of admissible evidence remained insufficient to rebut the RPD's credibility findings or provide independent corroboration; the appellants' failure to seek protection in the US and other inconsistencies supported the conclusion they were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB6-19138
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division From RPD Decision; Disposition on Admissibility of New Evidence and Merits
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; the RPD decision is confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Safe Third Country/asylum Shopping, Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Safe Third Country/asylum Shopping Corroboration

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division From RPD Decision; Disposition on Admissibility of New Evidence and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether new evidence is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 What standard of review/deference RAD should apply to RPD factual findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because although the newly tendered affidavit was admissible under s.110(4), the totality of admissible evidence remained insufficient to rebut the RPD's credibility findings or provide independent corroboration; the appellants' failure to seek protection in the US and other inconsistencies supported the conclusion they were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; the RPD decision is confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • Request for a hearing under s.110(6) IRPA denied