VC0-02834

VC0-02834

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD correctly found on the facts that the Associate Appellant had Morocco as a country of habitual residence (admissions and significant de facto residence over several years) and the Appellants were not credible (evasive, contradictory social media testimony, multiple returns to Tunisia and lack of recent threats), therefore they do not qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Citation
VC0-02834
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed.
Legal Topics
Country of Habitual Residence, Credibility Findings, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Use of Social Media Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Country of Habitual Residence Credibility Findings Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Use of Social Media 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Morocco is a country of former habitual residence for the Associate Appellant
  2. 2 Credibility of the Appellants and reliability of their social media testimony
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants meet the definition of Convention refugee or person in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD correctly found on the facts that the Associate Appellant had Morocco as a country of habitual residence (admissions and significant de facto residence over several years) and the Appellants were not credible (evasive, contradictory social media testimony, multiple returns to Tunisia and lack of recent threats), therefore they do not qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; Refugee Protection Division decision confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.