MB6-01015

MB6-01015

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant's credibility was properly and reasonably undermined by implausibilities and inconsistencies—principally the alleged existence and discovery of compromising photographs coupled with the appellant's failure to take basic security measures and internal contradictions about where the photographs were—therefore he did not prove a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk of serious harm and no new evidence was presented to alter that conclusion.

Citation
MB6-01015
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division; Decision on Appeal Issued by RAD Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Standard of Review, Plausibility of Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Standard of Review Plausibility of Evidence

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division; Decision on Appeal Issued by RAD Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the appellant established status as a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the appellant established status as a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant's credibility was properly and reasonably undermined by implausibilities and inconsistencies—principally the alleged existence and discovery of compromising photographs coupled with the appellant's failure to take basic security measures and internal contradictions about where the photographs were—therefore he did not prove a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk of serious harm and no new evidence was presented to alter that conclusion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination confirmed