TB4-12262

TB4-12262

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the proposed new psychological evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA, the appellant's testimony and documentary record were found not credible and insufficient to establish nexus to a Convention ground or risk to life, and the RPD correctly found a viable internal flight...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB4-12262
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Claim Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal Decision (rad Confirmation/dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Psychiatric Evidence, State Protection, Standard of Review, Section 96 IRPA, Section 97 IRPA
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Nexus to Convention Grounds Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Psychiatric Evidence +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Claim Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal Decision (rad Confirmation/dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed psychological report is admissible as new evidence on appeal under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether there is nexus between the appellant's fear and a Convention ground (s.96 IRPA)
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's credibility supports findings of risk to life or persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the proposed new psychological evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA, the appellant's testimony and documentary record were found not credible and insufficient to establish nexus to a Convention ground or risk to life, and the RPD correctly found a viable internal flight alternative, therefore the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
  • Proposed new psychological evidence not admitted under s.110(4) IRPA; no oral hearing ordered