TC1-03421

TC1-03421

The RAD dismissed the appeals because the appellants' central allegations lacked credibility due to contradictions, omissions and failure to provide reasonably expected corroborative documentation, and their voluntary return to Mexico undermined subjective fear; on that basis the presumption of truthfulness was rebutted and there is no serious possibility of persecution, so the RPD decision rejecting refugee protection is confirmed.

Citation
TC1-03421
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Associate: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellants Minors: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister: Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Standard of Review

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Associate

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellants Minors

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (respondent)

Respondent Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' testimony is credible
  2. 2 Whether the presumption of truthfulness of sworn testimony was rebutted
  3. 3 Whether there is a viable internal flight alternative in Mexico

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeals because the appellants' central allegations lacked credibility due to contradictions, omissions and failure to provide reasonably expected corroborative documentation, and their voluntary return to Mexico undermined subjective fear; on that basis the presumption of truthfulness was rebutted and there is no serious possibility of persecution, so the RPD decision rejecting refugee protection is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.