VC0-02019

VC0-02019

The RAD upholds the RPD's adverse credibility findings based on significant omissions and inconsistencies (notably non-disclosure of a 2012 US marriage revealed by CBSA), the Appellant's failure to pursue protection in the US for 16+ years which diminishes subjective fear, and the inadmissibility or irrelevance of proffered new evidence; the request for an oral hearing is denied and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
VC0-02019
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Intervenor: Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision upheld that Appellant is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Convention Refugee Determination, Non Disclosure of Material Facts, Failure to Seek Protection Abroad, Oral Hearing Entitlement
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Convention Refugee Determination Non Disclosure of Material Facts Failure to Seek Protection Abroad +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Respondent / Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant's evidence was credible given omissions and inconsistencies
  2. 2 Whether failure to disclose marriage documents intercepted by CBSA undermines credibility
  3. 3 Admissibility of new documentary evidence under s.110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upholds the RPD's adverse credibility findings based on significant omissions and inconsistencies (notably non-disclosure of a 2012 US marriage revealed by CBSA), the Appellant's failure to pursue protection in the US for 16+ years which diminishes subjective fear, and the inadmissibility or irrelevance of proffered new evidence; the request for an oral hearing is denied and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision upheld that Appellant is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision upheld