MB9-08973

MB9-08973

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD's negative credibility findings were justified by material omissions in the Basis of Claim, contradictions between testimony and documentary statements, vague and evasive testimony and behaviour inconsistent with an alleged risk to life; consequently the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return, and the minors failed to show a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk on return to the United States, so they are neither Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
MB9-08973
Parties
Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Risk Assessment, Persecution, Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Risk Assessment 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (male)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (female)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the appellants
  2. 2 Whether appellants face a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment if returned to Haiti
  3. 3 Whether minors face risk of separation or persecution if returned to the United States

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD's negative credibility findings were justified by material omissions in the Basis of Claim, contradictions between testimony and documentary statements, vague and evasive testimony and behaviour inconsistent with an alleged risk to life; consequently the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return, and the minors failed to show a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk on return to the United States, so they are neither Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD determination confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.