MB4-01019

MB4-01019

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD's adverse credibility finding was reasonable and within a range of acceptable outcomes given contradictions, lack of corroborating evidence of presence in Nigeria after 2012, and probative Facebook evidence; allegations of procedural unfairness lacked concrete examples and failed the correctness test; the purported new evidence failed s.110(4) IRPA (timing, availability, credibility or materiality) and therefore was inadmissible, so no RAD hearing was required.

Citation
MB4-01019
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Intervenor: Minister of Public Safety Canada
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Hearing on Appeal
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Hearing on Appeal

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Public Safety Canada

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether the RPD breached the duty of procedural fairness
  3. 3 Whether new evidence submitted on appeal meets s.110(4) IRPA and is admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD's adverse credibility finding was reasonable and within a range of acceptable outcomes given contradictions, lack of corroborating evidence of presence in Nigeria after 2012, and probative Facebook evidence; allegations of procedural unfairness lacked concrete examples and failed the correctness test; the purported new evidence failed s.110(4) IRPA (timing, availability, credibility or materiality) and therefore was inadmissible, so no RAD hearing was required.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision of March 7, 2014 confirmed by RAD on July 8, 2014