MB5-02265

MB5-02265

Appellant failed to establish her identity on a balance of probabilities because key identity documents (national identity card, birth certificate, nationality certificate) contained material anomalies and lacked probative features; the record evidence the appellant sought to add on appeal was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA; therefore the RPD determination that she is not a refugee or a person in need of protection is confirmed.

Citation
MB5-02265
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Intervenor/respondent: Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Identity, Admissibility of Evidence, Credibility Assessment, Documentary Evidence, Deference to Factfinder
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Identity Admissibility of Evidence Credibility Assessment Documentary Evidence Deference to Factfinder

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

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Intervenor/respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant established her identity on a balance of probabilities
  2. 2 Admissibility of new documentary evidence under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether to hold an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant failed to establish her identity on a balance of probabilities because key identity documents (national identity card, birth certificate, nationality certificate) contained material anomalies and lacked probative features; the record evidence the appellant sought to add on appeal was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA; therefore the RPD determination that she is not a refugee or a person in need of protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

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