MB9-03574

MB9-03574

The RAD upheld the RPD because the appellants' account was undermined by material contradictions, evasive and adjusted testimony, failure to produce critical corroborating documents (deed of gift and father's death certificate) despite availability, and an unjustified delay in claiming refugee protection; on that basis the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or a personal risk under s.97 IRPA, and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
MB9-03574
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXXXXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Documentary Evidence, Delay in Claiming Refugee Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Documentary Evidence Delay in Claiming Refugee Protection

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

Parties

XXXX XXXXXXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXXXXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the appellants
  2. 2 Whether the appellants meet the definition of a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD because the appellants' account was undermined by material contradictions, evasive and adjusted testimony, failure to produce critical corroborating documents (deed of gift and father's death certificate) despite availability, and an unjustified delay in claiming refugee protection; on that basis the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or a personal risk under s.97 IRPA, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed under subsection 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
  • RPD determination that the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection is confirmed