MB9-09756

MB9-09756

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility finding because the principal appellant's oral testimony was vague, repetitive and failed to provide basic specifics about central allegations; the corroborating affidavits and medical certificate did not support the key assertions; the alleged immediate arrest in Delhi was implausible given inter‑state police procedure; consequently the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture and the appeal was dismissed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Citation
MB9-09756
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Risk of Persecution, Corroboration, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Risk of Persecution Corroboration Standard of Review

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

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in its credibility assessment of the principal appellant
  2. 2 Whether the alleged same‑day arrest in Delhi was plausible given inter‑state police procedures
  3. 3 Whether the affidavits and medical certificate adequately corroborated the principal appellant's allegations

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility finding because the principal appellant's oral testimony was vague, repetitive and failed to provide basic specifics about central allegations; the corroborating affidavits and medical certificate did not support the key assertions; the alleged immediate arrest in Delhi was implausible given inter‑state police procedure; consequently the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture and the appeal was dismissed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Refugee Appeal Division dismisses the appeal and confirms the Refugee Protection Division's determination