MB3-02390

MB3-02390

The RAD dismissed the appeal: the two documents submitted on appeal were inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA (one pre‑dating the RPD decision and not shown to be unavailable or material; the testimonial letter lacked reliability and provenance), no s.110(6) hearing was warranted, and the RPD's credibility findings (omissions, vagueness, inconsistencies, lack of corroboration) were reasonable and entitled to deference; therefore the RPD determination that the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Citation
MB3-02390
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96‑97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Refugee Status Determination, Risk Based on Sexual Orientation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Refugee Status Determination +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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents submitted on appeal meet admissibility requirements of s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RAD should hold a hearing under s.110(6) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings regarding appellants' accounts

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal: the two documents submitted on appeal were inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA (one pre‑dating the RPD decision and not shown to be unavailable or material; the testimonial letter lacked reliability and provenance), no s.110(6) hearing was warranted, and the RPD's credibility findings (omissions, vagueness, inconsistencies, lack of corroboration) were reasonable and entitled to deference; therefore the RPD determination that the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96‑97 IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD determination confirmed
  • Documents submitted on appeal (2011 medical certificate and July 15, 2013 testimonial letter) found inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA