MB5-06052

MB5-06052

The RAD upheld the RPD because the RPD's determinative adverse credibility findings (material inconsistencies in testimony and documentation, and omission of a key sibling) were reasonable and the appellants therefore failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB5-06052
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Spouse (associated Appellant): XXXX XXXX; Child (associated Appellant): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division Following RPD Decision; Determination on Merits
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Gender Related Persecution, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Gender Related Persecution Country Conditions

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Spouse (associated Appellant)

XXXX XXXX

Child (associated Appellant)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division Following RPD Decision; Determination on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the appellants established Convention refugee or person in need of protection status on a balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should remit the matter to the RPD for reconsideration

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD because the RPD's determinative adverse credibility findings (material inconsistencies in testimony and documentation, and omission of a key sibling) were reasonable and the appellants therefore failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • The determination of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA
  • No remand to the RPD; appeal dismissed