TB7-16080

TB7-16080

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellant failed to establish that the proffered documents were new and reasonably unavailable, there was no breach of procedural fairness given notice and opportunity to respond, and the Appellant's testimony about her sexual identity and the outing incident was rendered not credible on a balance of probabilities (in part due to audible coaching by counsel and documentary inconsistencies); corroborating affidavits and community documents were unreliable, therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution or serious risk and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Citation
TB7-16080
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (confirmation/dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Admissibility of New Evidence, Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness Admissibility of New Evidence Corroboration

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (confirmation/dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant's newly tendered documents constitute 'new evidence' under s.110(4) and warrant an oral hearing under s.110(6)
  2. 2 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to confront the Appellant and counsel about alleged whispering/communication during the hearing
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant's testimony regarding same‑sex identity and the precipitating outing incident is credible on a balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellant failed to establish that the proffered documents were new and reasonably unavailable, there was no breach of procedural fairness given notice and opportunity to respond, and the Appellant's testimony about her sexual identity and the outing incident was rendered not credible on a balance of probabilities (in part due to audible coaching by counsel and documentary inconsistencies); corroborating affidavits and community documents were unreliable, therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution or serious risk and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • RPD decision of July 19, 2017 confirmed
  • Appeal dismissed by RAD on March 19, 2018