MB5-02735

MB5-02735

The RAD confirmed the RPD's determination because the principal's account lacked necessary detail and corroboration, documentary evidence (website, pamphlets, police complaints) had no probative value or trace, the appellant did not demonstrate a profile likely to attract state or intelligence service persecution, and the country evidence did not support a risk of persecution; therefore the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB5-02735
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (no Hearing Requested, No New Evidence)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Definition, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review, Country Condition Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Definition Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Standard of Review Country Condition Evidence

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor Child

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (no Hearing Requested, No New Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellants not to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the male appellant's testimony and documentary evidence were credible and corroborated
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should overturn the RPD's credibility and fact findings under the applicable standard of review

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's determination because the principal's account lacked necessary detail and corroboration, documentary evidence (website, pamphlets, police complaints) had no probative value or trace, the appellant did not demonstrate a profile likely to attract state or intelligence service persecution, and the country evidence did not support a risk of persecution; therefore the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA

Orders

  • Pursuant to subsection 111(1) IRPA the RAD confirms the RPD decision
  • No hearing granted; no new evidence admitted