TB4-10380

TB4-10380

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because multiple negative credibility and plausibility findings (inconsistencies about leadership and husband information, implausible explanation for US visas, implausible exit from China despite alleged PSB interest, lack of documentary corroboration) were open to the RPD on the record, no new evidence was submitted, and therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB4-10380
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, Sur Place, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Standard of Review, Oral Hearing, Failure to Claim in Transit Country
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Sur Place Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Standard of Review +2 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 7 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Standard of review for RAD (hybrid appeal)
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the Appellant's credibility
  3. 3 Plausibility of the Appellant's exit from China and snakehead explanation

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because multiple negative credibility and plausibility findings (inconsistencies about leadership and husband information, implausible explanation for US visas, implausible exit from China despite alleged PSB interest, lack of documentary corroboration) were open to the RPD on the record, no new evidence was submitted, and therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

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