TB7-05501

TB7-05501

The RAD confirmed the RPD because, on a balance of probabilities, the appellants' evidence was not credible or sufficiently corroborated, key allegations (including honor‑killing threats and biweekly Ashura practices) were omitted or inconsistent, documentary evidence was self‑sourced or non‑probative, and country documentation did not demonstrate a real risk tied to the change of sect; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB7-05501
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX; Spouse Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (daughter): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under section 111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Religious Persecution, Honor Killing
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment State Protection Religious Persecution +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Spouse Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether appellants are persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether appellants face persecution or serious harm from Hezbollah due to change of sect

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because, on a balance of probabilities, the appellants' evidence was not credible or sufficiently corroborated, key allegations (including honor‑killing threats and biweekly Ashura practices) were omitted or inconsistent, documentary evidence was self‑sourced or non‑probative, and country documentation did not demonstrate a real risk tied to the change of sect; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under section 111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • The RAD confirms the RPD decision and dismisses the appeal