MB6-06302

MB6-06302

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings as central and determinative: appellants made material, post-hoc amendments to dates and travel details only after the Minister produced adverse documents, contradicted key allegations (e.g., divorce proceedings, dates of attacks), and produced documents of questionable probative value; no new evidence was accepted and the s.110(6) threshold for a RAD hearing was not met. Accordingly the RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD's finding that the appellants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
MB6-06302
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor Represented): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (re Determination Before Refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal; Request for RAD Hearing Denied; New Evidence Rejected
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA and not persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, Gender Based Persecution, Procedural Fairness, New Evidence Admissibility, Minister Intervention, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Gender Based Persecution Procedural Fairness New Evidence Admissibility Minister Intervention +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor Represented)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (re Determination Before Refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal; Request for RAD Hearing Denied; New Evidence Rejected

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants qualify as Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether appellants' credibility findings by the RPD were reasonable and should be overturned

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings as central and determinative: appellants made material, post-hoc amendments to dates and travel details only after the Minister produced adverse documents, contradicted key allegations (e.g., divorce proceedings, dates of attacks), and produced documents of questionable probative value; no new evidence was accepted and the s.110(6) threshold for a RAD hearing was not met. Accordingly the RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD's finding that the appellants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA and not persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Request for RAD hearing denied