MB3-02037

MB3-02037

The RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by specific contradictions and omissions in the record (inconsistent statements about threats, movement and employment) and were within a range of reasonable outcomes; no new admissible evidence was submitted and no hearing under s.110(6) was warranted, therefore...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MB3-02037
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minister: Minister of Public Safety Canada
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of Evidence on Appeal (s.110), Standard of Review (reasonableness), Deference of RAD to RPD, Remedy (appeal Dismissal)
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of Evidence on Appeal (s.110) Standard of Review (reasonableness) Deference of RAD to RPD +1 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Public Safety Canada

Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the RPD err in its credibility assessment of the appellant?
  2. 2 Was new evidence submitted and admissible under s.110(4)?
  3. 3 Should the RAD have held a hearing under s.110(6)?

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by specific contradictions and omissions in the record (inconsistent statements about threats, movement and employment) and were within a range of reasonable outcomes; no new admissible evidence was submitted and no hearing under s.110(6) was warranted, therefore the RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the RPD decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision dated May 10, 2013 is confirmed; no further hearing or evidence admitted on appeal