MB9-08826

MB9-08826

The appeal is dismissed because the Principal Appellant was found not credible on the basis of multiple unexplained omissions and inconsistencies in her testimony and documentary record; negative inferences were properly drawn, supporting documents failed to independently corroborate the claims, and on a balance of probabilities the appellants did not prove they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Citation
MB9-08826
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Internal Flight Alternative, Persecution, Evidentiary Weight
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Credibility Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Internal Flight Alternative Persecution Evidentiary Weight

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant is a credible witness
  2. 2 Whether omissions and inconsistencies justify negative inferences
  3. 3 Whether documentary evidence corroborates the appellants' claims

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Principal Appellant was found not credible on the basis of multiple unexplained omissions and inconsistencies in her testimony and documentary record; negative inferences were properly drawn, supporting documents failed to independently corroborate the claims, and on a balance of probabilities the appellants did not prove they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • The decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated March 11, 2019 is confirmed; the appeal is dismissed.