TB6-07306

TB6-07306

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant failed to discharge the burden to establish a serious possibility of persecution: material credibility defects (implausible account of entry on fraudulent passport, inconsistencies about threats and police response, weak documentary corroboration), inadmissibility of post-decision affidavit under s.110(4), and an available internal flight alternative meant the RPD's negative determination was reasonable and was confirmed under s.111(1)(a).

Citation
TB6-07306
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirming that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection is confirmed.
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Admissibility of New Evidence, Internal Flight Alternative, Judicial Deference, Section 110(6) Hearing
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Admissibility of New Evidence Internal Flight Alternative Judicial Deference Section 110(6) Hearing

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD ignored evidence
  2. 2 Whether the RPD decision was unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the RPD made erroneous credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant failed to discharge the burden to establish a serious possibility of persecution: material credibility defects (implausible account of entry on fraudulent passport, inconsistencies about threats and police response, weak documentary corroboration), inadmissibility of post-decision affidavit under s.110(4), and an available internal flight alternative meant the RPD's negative determination was reasonable and was confirmed under s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirming that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection is confirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
  • Affidavit submitted on appeal found inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA