MB5-01585

MB5-01585

No new evidence was submitted so no RAD hearing under s.110(6); applying the appellate standard (palpable and overriding error) to the RPD record and testimony, the RAD found cumulative contradictions, unexplained omissions (police complaint), and conduct (false passport, failure to seek asylum elsewhere) fatally undermined credibility and thus the RPD did not commit a palpable and overriding error; appeal dismissed and RPD determination confirmed.

Citation
MB5-01585
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Intervenor: Minister of Public Safety of Canada
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming Rpd)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Standard of Appellate Review, Refugee Protection Claim, Fresh Evidence Under S.110(6) IRPA, Procedural Requirements
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Standard of Appellate Review Refugee Protection Claim Fresh Evidence Under S.110(6) IRPA Procedural Requirements

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Public Safety of Canada

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellant's credibility
  2. 2 whether a hearing should be held by the RAD under s.110(6) IRPA due to new evidence
  3. 3 what standard of appellate intervention the RAD must apply when reviewing RPD credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

No new evidence was submitted so no RAD hearing under s.110(6); applying the appellate standard (palpable and overriding error) to the RPD record and testimony, the RAD found cumulative contradictions, unexplained omissions (police complaint), and conduct (false passport, failure to seek asylum elsewhere) fatally undermined credibility and thus the RPD did not commit a palpable and overriding error; appeal dismissed and RPD determination confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination confirmed that appellant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA