MB5-02875

MB5-02875

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because the claimant was not a credible witness and failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the identity card was issued after the alleged incident; material inconsistencies (addresses, document issuance timing, passport/card number) and evasive testimony were determinative; therefore the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96–97 IRPA.

Citation
MB5-02875
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: Me Susan Ramirez; Counsel for the Minister / Minister's Representative: Minister of Public Safety Canada (representative intervened before RPD)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on the Paper Record (no Hearing; Appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellant is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Interpretation Quality, Documentary Evidence, Identity Documents, Standard of Review and RAD Powers
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness Interpretation Quality Documentary Evidence Identity Documents +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Me Susan Ramirez

Counsel for the Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister of Public Safety Canada (representative intervened before RPD)

Counsel for the Minister / Minister's Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on the Paper Record (no Hearing; Appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness/natural justice
  2. 2 Whether the RPD improperly assessed the appellant's credibility
  3. 3 Whether the identity card was issued after the alleged incident and is reliable evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because the claimant was not a credible witness and failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the identity card was issued after the alleged incident; material inconsistencies (addresses, document issuance timing, passport/card number) and evasive testimony were determinative; therefore the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96–97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellant is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection

Orders

  • The RAD confirms the RPD determination and dismisses the appeal