MC0-09001

MC0-09001

The RAD concluded the RPD erred in its adverse credibility findings and that the Principal Appellant's testimony and corroborative documents were credible, but held that the family would not face a serious possibility of persecution or section 96/97 harm if the Principal Appellant renounced his civil claims regarding loans; therefore the appeals fail and the RPD decision is confirmed under section 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MC0-09001
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (son) Represented by Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, Corroboration, Re‑availment, Protection Under Sections 96 and 97 IRPA, Convention Refugee Determination, Child Refugee Claim, Gender Related Claim (considered)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Corroboration Re‑availment Protection Under Sections 96 and 97 IRPA Convention Refugee Determination +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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (son) Represented by Principal Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable
  2. 2 Whether the Principal Appellant's short return to Sri Lanka constituted re‑availment indicating lack of subjective fear
  3. 3 Whether documentary and police reports sufficiently corroborated the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD erred in its adverse credibility findings and that the Principal Appellant's testimony and corroborative documents were credible, but held that the family would not face a serious possibility of persecution or section 96/97 harm if the Principal Appellant renounced his civil claims regarding loans; therefore the appeals fail and the RPD decision is confirmed under section 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act the Refugee Appeal Division confirms the Refugee Protection Division decision dated March 23, 2020; appeals dismissed.