MB8-15981

MB8-15981

The RAD affirmed the RPD's adverse credibility finding because multiple unexplained inconsistencies, omissions and implausible explanations in the appellant's oral testimony, police report and documentary record, together with failure to corroborate key elements (airline tickets, context for video), undermined the claim; accordingly the appellants failed to demonstrate they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Citation
MB8-15981
Parties
Appellant / Person Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant / Person Subject of the Appeal (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant / Person Subject of the Appeal (child): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that the named persons are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Protection Under IRPA S.111(1)(a), Standard of Review, Evidentiary Sufficiency
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination Protection Under IRPA S.111(1)(a) Standard of Review Evidentiary Sufficiency

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 XXXX

Appellant / Person Subject of the Appeal

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Subject of the Appeal (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Subject of the Appeal (child)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's credibility is sufficiently undermined by inconsistencies, omissions and implausible explanations to deny refugee status and protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a)
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in law or fact in assessing documentary and testimonial evidence
  3. 3 Whether RAD should defer to RPD findings or apply correctness standard of review

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirmed the RPD's adverse credibility finding because multiple unexplained inconsistencies, omissions and implausible explanations in the appellant's oral testimony, police report and documentary record, together with failure to corroborate key elements (airline tickets, context for video), undermined the claim; accordingly the appellants failed to demonstrate they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that the named persons are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision dated July 9, 2018 confirmed