MB9-06757

MB9-06757

The RPD did not err in finding the claimant's unexplained omission regarding fear of political imprisonment materially undermined credibility, and on the totality of the evidence the claimant failed to establish an objectively well-founded fear of persecution; accordingly the RAD correctly dismissed the appeal under the correctness standard.

Citation
MB9-06757
Parties
Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Minor Child: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the claimant and her minor children are neither refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Omission in Basis of Claim Form, Well Founded Fear of Persecution, Standard of Review (correctness), Refugee Protection for Minors
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Omission in Basis of Claim Form Well Founded Fear of Persecution Standard of Review (correctness) Refugee Protection for Minors

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

XXXX XXXX

Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the claimant's credibility given a material omission from the Basis of Claim form
  2. 2 Whether the claimant established a subjective fear of persecution and that the fear is objectively well-founded
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should overturn the RPD decision under the correctness standard

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD did not err in finding the claimant's unexplained omission regarding fear of political imprisonment materially undermined credibility, and on the totality of the evidence the claimant failed to establish an objectively well-founded fear of persecution; accordingly the RAD correctly dismissed the appeal under the correctness standard.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the claimant and her minor children are neither refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • The determination of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed: the claimant and her minor children are neither refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.