TB7-19152

TB7-19152

The RPD reasonably found, on a balance of probabilities, that significant omissions and inconsistencies in the Appellants' Schedule A and testimony concerning central events (employment at a Puebla bakery in 2010 and the spouse's bus-driving job in 2016), and the lack of corroborating documentation, rebutted the presumption of truthfulness; accordingly the Appellants failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or need for protection under ss.96-97 IRPA and the RAD confirms the RPD decision.

Citation
TB7-19152
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (son): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Decision on Appeal Confirming Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review, Well Founded Fear of Persecution, Corroboration, Documentary Evidence, Omissions in Narrative
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Standard of Review Well Founded Fear of Persecution Corroboration 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) / Decision on Appeal Confirming Refugee Protection Division (rpd) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment regarding the bakery employment and the spouse's bus-driving job
  2. 2 Whether omissions in Schedule A and inconsistencies rebut the presumption of truthfulness
  3. 3 Whether corroborating documentary evidence was required given credibility concerns

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD reasonably found, on a balance of probabilities, that significant omissions and inconsistencies in the Appellants' Schedule A and testimony concerning central events (employment at a Puebla bakery in 2010 and the spouse's bus-driving job in 2016), and the lack of corroborating documentation, rebutted the presumption of truthfulness; accordingly the Appellants failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or need for protection under ss.96-97 IRPA and the RAD confirms the RPD decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act