MB4-01691

MB4-01691

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the documents submitted on appeal were inadmissible or lacked probative value under s.110(4) IRPA (some being not new, uncertified, potentially forged or obtained through third parties without satisfactory verification), and therefore there was no basis to disturb the RPD's finding that the appellant failed to establish his identity or to grant a RAD hearing under s.110(6).

Citation
MB4-01691
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Intervenor: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellant did not establish identity and is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Identity Documentation, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Credibility Assessment, Refugee Protection Determinations, Hearing Discretion (s.110(6) Irpa)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Identity Documentation Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Credibility Assessment Refugee Protection Determinations Hearing Discretion (s.110(6) Irpa)

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant established identity and nationality
  2. 2 Whether documents obtained after RPD decision are admissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether admissible evidence justifies a RAD hearing under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the documents submitted on appeal were inadmissible or lacked probative value under s.110(4) IRPA (some being not new, uncertified, potentially forged or obtained through third parties without satisfactory verification), and therefore there was no basis to disturb the RPD's finding that the appellant failed to establish his identity or to grant a RAD hearing under s.110(6).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellant did not establish identity and is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision dated February 21, 2014 confirmed