TB4-04987

TB4-04987

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants' claims failed primarily on credibility—significant inconsistent and contradictory evidence—and the purported new country-condition documents met s.110(4) IRPA but were not material and would not have changed the outcome; the RAD's independent assessment therefore upheld the RPD's rejection and dismissed the appeals pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB4-04987
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (rad Confirms Rpd)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Role of Appellate Tribunal, Country Conditions, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review Role of Appellate Tribunal Country Conditions Convention Refugee +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (rad Confirms Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and is material
  2. 2 Appropriate role and standard of review of RAD when assessing RPD decisions
  3. 3 Whether appellants established credible fear of persecution or risk of torture/death/cruel treatment

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants' claims failed primarily on credibility—significant inconsistent and contradictory evidence—and the purported new country-condition documents met s.110(4) IRPA but were not material and would not have changed the outcome; the RAD's independent assessment therefore upheld the RPD's rejection and dismissed the appeals pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection