TB4-02513

TB4-02513

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonably open on the evidence, the RPD applied the Adjei standard correctly, and the Appellant failed to provide credible, corroborated evidence demonstrating a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk on return; accordingly the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96–97 IRPA.

Citation
TB4-02513
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (rad Confirms Rpd)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Sexual Orientation Persecution, Standard of Review, Adjei Test, Country Conditions, Gender Related Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Sexual Orientation Persecution Standard of Review Adjei Test Country Conditions +1 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (rad Confirms Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD misapplied the Adjei test/standard of proof
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in assessing credibility and the totality of evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant established a well‑founded fear of persecution based on sexual orientation

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonably open on the evidence, the RPD applied the Adjei standard correctly, and the Appellant failed to provide credible, corroborated evidence demonstrating a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk on return; accordingly the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96–97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of IRPA