TB3-06843

TB3-06843

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's adverse credibility finding was reasonable and fell within a range of defensible outcomes given inconsistencies in testimony, apparent manipulation of photographs and the low probative value of the contested documents; the omission to expressly reference some documents was harmless and no new documentary evidence warranted a RAD hearing under s.110(6).

Citation
TB3-06843
Parties
Appellant: XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / RAD Decision (appeal Heard and Determined)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Determinations, Standard of Review, Documentary Evidence, Rehearing Under S.110(6), Authenticity of Evidence (photographs)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Determinations Standard of Review Documentary Evidence Rehearing Under S.110(6) Authenticity of Evidence (photographs)

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / RAD Decision (appeal Heard and Determined)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred by failing to address certain documentary evidence and by speculating that photographs were manipulated
  2. 2 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility finding was reasonable and supported by the record
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should grant a new hearing under s.110(6) based on documentary evidence raised on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's adverse credibility finding was reasonable and fell within a range of defensible outcomes given inconsistencies in testimony, apparent manipulation of photographs and the low probative value of the contested documents; the omission to expressly reference some documents was harmless and no new documentary evidence warranted a RAD hearing under s.110(6).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act