MB4-02059

MB4-02059

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's negative credibility findings were supported by contradictions, omissions in initial documents, implausibilities, evasive testimony and objective context (prevalence of false documents); the affidavits and medical reports lacked independent probative value given the undermined credibility; no new credible evidence was provided to justify intervention or a separate s.97 finding; therefore the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MB4-02059
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review for Administrative Appeals, Section 96 Convention Refugee, Section 97 Person in Need of Protection, Admissibility and Weight of Documentary Evidence, Remedies: Confirmation, Substitution, Referral
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Standard of Review for Administrative Appeals Section 96 Convention Refugee Section 97 Person in Need of Protection Admissibility and Weight of Documentary Evidence +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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to consider or properly weigh affidavits and medical documents (R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6)
  3. 3 Whether omission of alleged arrests from initial forms justifies adverse inference

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's negative credibility findings were supported by contradictions, omissions in initial documents, implausibilities, evasive testimony and objective context (prevalence of false documents); the affidavits and medical reports lacked independent probative value given the undermined credibility; no new credible evidence was provided to justify intervention or a separate s.97 finding; therefore the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination that appellant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 and not a person in need of protection under s.97 is confirmed