MB5-02611

MB5-02611

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD did not err: the male appellant's testimony was vague, inconsistent and not spontaneous; documents filed on appeal were not admissible as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA because they postdated, were reasonably available or failed to cure credibility defects; no basis existed to hold a hearing under s.110(6); therefore the appellants are not Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
MB5-02611
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (final Disposition)
Outcome
appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Standard of Review for RAD, Convention Refugee (s.96 Irpa), Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa), Request for Hearing (s.110(6) Irpa)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Standard of Review for RAD Convention Refugee (s.96 Irpa) Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa) +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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellants not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the new documents filed on appeal constitute admissible new evidence under subsection 110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the male appellant's testimony was credible and whether negative inferences were justified

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD did not err: the male appellant's testimony was vague, inconsistent and not spontaneous; documents filed on appeal were not admissible as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA because they postdated, were reasonably available or failed to cure credibility defects; no basis existed to hold a hearing under s.110(6); therefore the appellants are not Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA and not persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA