MB8-27474

MB8-27474

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant's claim failed on credibility: material inconsistencies about the attack, the number of witnesses, his stated level of political activism (paid contractor, not activist), and contradictory statements about police effectiveness and reporting undermined the claim; given lack of credible evidence of persecution or inability of state protection, the appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MB8-27474
Parties
Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal (appellant): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) — Decision on Record (no New Evidence, No Oral Hearing Requested)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review, Convention Refugee Definition, Person in Need of Protection, Country Condition Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Standard of Review Convention Refugee Definition Person in Need of Protection Country Condition Evidence

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) — Decision on Record (no New Evidence, No Oral Hearing Requested)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD made an erroneous finding of fact in a capricious or perverse manner
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to consider all evidence before it (including country conditions and police capacity)
  3. 3 Whether the appellant established membership/active political profile sufficient for persecution claim

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant's claim failed on credibility: material inconsistencies about the attack, the number of witnesses, his stated level of political activism (paid contractor, not activist), and contradictory statements about police effectiveness and reporting undermined the claim; given lack of credible evidence of persecution or inability of state protection, the appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Confirmation of RPD decision of November 13, 2018 that appellant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA