TB4-04541

TB4-04541

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the central credibility findings were supported by the record (inconsistencies about detention, implausible detention conduct, failure to corroborate suspension of studies, unexplained omissions on IMM5669, and delay in claiming protection), the two documents proffered on appeal did not meet s.110(4) admissibility requirements, and under the RAD's hybrid appellate role it independently assessed the evidence and reached the same conclusion that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TB4-04541
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: N/A; Counsel for the Minister: N/A; Panel Member: Luis F. Agostinho
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad); Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence, Standard of Review / Appellate Role, Convention Refugee Determination, Delay and Claim Timeliness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of Fresh Evidence Standard of Review / Appellate Role Convention Refugee Determination Delay and Claim Timeliness

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

N/A

Designated Representative

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Luis F. Agostinho

Panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad); Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings such that the RAD should substitute its own decision
  2. 2 Whether documents submitted on appeal meet s.110(4) IRPA requirements for new evidence
  3. 3 What standard / role the RAD must apply when reviewing RPD decisions (hybrid appeal vs. reasonableness)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the central credibility findings were supported by the record (inconsistencies about detention, implausible detention conduct, failure to corroborate suspension of studies, unexplained omissions on IMM5669, and delay in claiming protection), the two documents proffered on appeal did not meet s.110(4) admissibility requirements, and under the RAD's hybrid appellate role it independently assessed the evidence and reached the same conclusion that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of IRPA the decision of the RPD is confirmed; the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection