TB5-10834

TB5-10834

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the purported new evidence failed s.110(4) (was reasonably available or not sufficiently justified as unavailable), the RPD's joinder of claims was procedurally justified given strong indicia of pre-existing relationship and similarity of claims, and the Appellants were found not credible such that there is no objective basis for refugee protection under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Citation
TB5-10834
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to RAD Decision on Admissibility and Merits
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Joinder of Claims, Admissibility of New Evidence, Section 110(4) IRPA, Section 111(1)(a) IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Joinder of Claims Admissibility of New Evidence Section 110(4) IRPA Section 111(1)(a) IRPA

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to RAD Decision on Admissibility and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence meets s.110(4) IRPA and is admissible on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in joining the two claims and breached procedural fairness
  3. 3 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the purported new evidence failed s.110(4) (was reasonably available or not sufficiently justified as unavailable), the RPD's joinder of claims was procedurally justified given strong indicia of pre-existing relationship and similarity of claims, and the Appellants were found not credible such that there is no objective basis for refugee protection under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • New evidence proposed on appeal not admitted as it failed s.110(4) and related admissibility criteria