TB4-02510

TB4-02510

The RAD confirms the RPD decision because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by specific and significant omissions, contradictions and implausibilities in testimony and a lack of corroboration; the personal doctor and lawyer letters contained material irregularities suggesting lack of authenticity; the purported new US State Department report was neither sufficiently new nor material to alter the outcome; no breach of natural justice or bias was established; accordingly the RPD's conclusion that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection is reasonable.

Citation
TB4-02510
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness / Natural Justice, Admissibility of New Evidence, Internal Flight Alternative, Document Authenticity, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness / Natural Justice Admissibility of New Evidence Internal Flight Alternative Document Authenticity +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether RPD breached natural justice / was biased
  3. 3 Whether personal documents were authentic

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD decision because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by specific and significant omissions, contradictions and implausibilities in testimony and a lack of corroboration; the personal doctor and lawyer letters contained material irregularities suggesting lack of authenticity; the purported new US State Department report was neither sufficiently new nor material to alter the outcome; no breach of natural justice or bias was established; accordingly the RPD's conclusion that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection is reasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Determination of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA