TB6-07729

TB6-07729

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant's identity documents were found to be untrustworthy, his explanations for inconsistencies were not credible, the new documents submitted on appeal were not trustworthy in the circumstances, and therefore the appellant failed to meet the evidentiary burden under section 106 of the IRPA; accordingly he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed under section 111(1)(a).

Citation
TB6-07729
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Identity Documentation, Credibility, Sexual Orientation, Convention Refugee Determination, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Identity Documentation Credibility Sexual Orientation Convention Refugee Determination Admissibility of New Evidence Standard of Review

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in not requesting additional identity documents
  2. 2 Whether the RPD ignored documentary evidence and testimony regarding sexual orientation
  3. 3 Whether the appellant established identity under section 106 of the IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant's identity documents were found to be untrustworthy, his explanations for inconsistencies were not credible, the new documents submitted on appeal were not trustworthy in the circumstances, and therefore the appellant failed to meet the evidentiary burden under section 106 of the IRPA; accordingly he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed under section 111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated May 16, 2016 is confirmed.