MB3-04628

MB3-04628

The RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable in light of inconsistent narratives, repeated voluntary returns to Sri Lanka, lack of corroborative evidence and absence of a risk profile; therefore the appellant failed to establish a real risk under s.96 or s.97 IRPA on a balance of probabilities and the RAD must confirm the RPD decision.

Citation
MB3-04628
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (confirmation or Dismissal of RPD Decision)
Outcome
Appeal denied; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Sur Place, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa), Standard of Review (reasonableness)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Sur Place Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa) Standard of Review (reasonableness)

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (confirmation or Dismissal of RPD Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD reached unreasonable credibility conclusions
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its analysis of the sur place claim
  3. 3 Whether the appellant established risk under s.96 or s.97 IRPA on balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable in light of inconsistent narratives, repeated voluntary returns to Sri Lanka, lack of corroborative evidence and absence of a risk profile; therefore the appellant failed to establish a real risk under s.96 or s.97 IRPA on a balance of probabilities and the RAD must confirm the RPD decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal denied; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; Mr. XXXX XXXX is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA