MB9-06146

MB9-06146

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings because numerous material inconsistencies and contradictions—particularly regarding the complaint to authorities, timing of incidents, authenticity and content of Exhibit D-7 (including incorrect sister age), and whether the accused was arrested or fled—go to the core of the refugee claim; absent credible proof, the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution under a Convention ground or a risk under section 97 IRPA, so the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB9-06146
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spousal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Child Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Reasons and Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision rejecting refugee protection claims
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Section 97 IRPA Risk, Document Authenticity, Procedural Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination Section 97 IRPA Risk Document Authenticity +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spousal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Reasons and Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the principal appellant not credible
  2. 2 Whether inconsistencies and contradictions (including Exhibit D-7 and omission in BOC) go to central elements of the claim
  3. 3 Whether appellants established a well-founded fear of persecution under a Convention ground or a risk under section 97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings because numerous material inconsistencies and contradictions—particularly regarding the complaint to authorities, timing of incidents, authenticity and content of Exhibit D-7 (including incorrect sister age), and whether the accused was arrested or fled—go to the core of the refugee claim; absent credible proof, the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution under a Convention ground or a risk under section 97 IRPA, so the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision rejecting refugee protection claims

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and determination confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act