TB7-09905

TB7-09905

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the questioning did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias and the RPD's adverse credibility findings, based on lack of corroborative documentary evidence and inconsistent testimony, were determinative; therefore there was insufficient evidence that the appellants would face persecution or require protection on return to Hungary.

Citation
TB7-09905
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD that appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, State Protection, Documentary Corroboration, Roma Discrimination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Reasonable Apprehension of Bias State Protection Documentary Corroboration Roma Discrimination

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RPD erred in refusing recusal for reasonable apprehension of bias
  2. 2 Whether RPD erred in credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether there was state protection and risk of persecution on return

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the questioning did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias and the RPD's adverse credibility findings, based on lack of corroborative documentary evidence and inconsistent testimony, were determinative; therefore there was insufficient evidence that the appellants would face persecution or require protection on return to Hungary.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD that appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act