TB7-16469

TB7-16469

Even accepting some factual uncertainty, the appeal is dismissed because the Appellant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection by clear and convincing evidence on a balance of probabilities, and adverse credibility findings on central elements (as applied to ss.96 and 97 IRPA) mean the RPD's conclusion that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is to be confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-16469
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (no New Evidence; No Oral Hearing Requested)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Domestic Violence, Section 97 IRPA, Chairperson's Guideline 4
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Credibility Assessment State Protection Gender Based Persecution Domestic Violence Section 97 IRPA +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (no New Evidence; No Oral Hearing Requested)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to refer to relevant evidence rebutting implausibility findings
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred by not conducting an independent assessment under section 97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

Even accepting some factual uncertainty, the appeal is dismissed because the Appellant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection by clear and convincing evidence on a balance of probabilities, and adverse credibility findings on central elements (as applied to ss.96 and 97 IRPA) mean the RPD's conclusion that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is to be confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • The decision of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed
  • The designation of the Principal Appellant as the designated representative for the minor Appellant is maintained