MB3-03996

MB3-03996

No hearing under s.110(6) because no new evidence; RPD did not breach procedural fairness because passport was in evidence and counsel did not request time to review it at the hearing; RPD reasonably found a fatal contradiction based on a passport entry stamp that undermined a central allegation; therefore appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Citation
MB3-03996
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Request for Hearing Under S.110(6) Denied; Appeal Decided on the Papers
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review, Procedural Fairness, Subsection 110(6) IRPA, Refusal of Refugee Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Credibility Assessment Standard of Review Subsection 110(6) IRPA Refusal of Refugee Protection

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Request for Hearing Under S.110(6) Denied; Appeal Decided on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RAD should hold a hearing under s.110(6) IRPA on new evidence
  2. 2 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness by not disclosing full passport before the hearing
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment

Ratio Decidendi

No hearing under s.110(6) because no new evidence; RPD did not breach procedural fairness because passport was in evidence and counsel did not request time to review it at the hearing; RPD reasonably found a fatal contradiction based on a passport entry stamp that undermined a central allegation; therefore appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and the determination of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed; no hearing under s.110(6) IRPA granted