TB3-03280

TB3-03280

Although the RAD found the Gambian identity card could be accepted as establishing citizenship, on the determinative issue the RPD reasonably concluded the appellant lacked subjective fear because he failed to seek protection in Spain or France and provided inconsistent explanations; the new evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA, and therefore the RPD determination that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection is confirmed.

Citation
TB3-03280
Parties
Appellant: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Identity Documents, Standard of Review, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Subjective Fear, Oral Hearing Request
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Identity Documents Standard of Review Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Subjective Fear +1 more

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellant not credible regarding identity
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellant not credible such that he is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether evidence submitted on appeal is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA and whether an oral hearing is warranted

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RAD found the Gambian identity card could be accepted as establishing citizenship, on the determinative issue the RPD reasonably concluded the appellant lacked subjective fear because he failed to seek protection in Spain or France and provided inconsistent explanations; the new evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA, and therefore the RPD determination that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Confirm RPD determination that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
  • New evidence submitted on appeal found inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA and no oral hearing granted