MC0-05704

MC0-05704

The presumption of truth was rebutted by core material credibility failures (frequent voluntary re‑availments to Pakistan, inconsistent documentary evidence, uncorroborated allegations), resulting in no credible objective risk of persecution or s.97 risk; although the RPD erred on exclusion weighting, the correct conclusion is that appellants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection, so the appeals are dismissed.

Citation
MC0-05704
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent/minister: Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed pursuant to IRPA s. 111(1)(a).
Legal Topics
Convention Exclusion Article 1 E, Credibility Assessment, Presumption of Truthfulness, Forward‑looking Risk (s.97), Zeng Three‑stage Test
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Law Convention Exclusion Article 1 E Credibility Assessment Presumption of Truthfulness Forward‑looking Risk (s.97) Zeng Three‑stage Test

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellants

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Respondent/minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are excluded under Article 1E of the 1951 Convention
  2. 2 Whether appellants' testimony and documents are credible on a balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether there is an objective basis/serious possibility of persecution or s.97 risk in Pakistan

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption of truth was rebutted by core material credibility failures (frequent voluntary re‑availments to Pakistan, inconsistent documentary evidence, uncorroborated allegations), resulting in no credible objective risk of persecution or s.97 risk; although the RPD erred on exclusion weighting, the correct conclusion is that appellants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection, so the appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed pursuant to IRPA s. 111(1)(a).

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; Appellants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection.