MB7-25902

MB7-25902

The RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and supported: appellants' testimony contained material inconsistencies and contradictions that rebutted the presumption of truth; documentary evidence (dispensary and counsel letters) did not establish identity of attackers or nexus to monk activities; no evidence of intent to resume monkhood; delay in claiming asylum in Israel and Canada and failure to seek asylum where able undermined credibility; on balance appellants failed to prove they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB7-25902
Parties
Principal Appellant: Principal Appellant (name redacted); Associate Appellant: Associate Appellant (name redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Risk of Persecution, Section 97 Risk of Harm, Delay in Claiming Asylum, Corroboration of Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Risk of Persecution Section 97 Risk of Harm Delay in Claiming Asylum Corroboration of 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (name redacted)

Principal Appellant

Associate Appellant (name redacted)

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether appellants established nexus between alleged harm and Convention grounds
  3. 3 Whether appellants face a serious possibility of persecution (s.96) or section 97 risk of harm

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and supported: appellants' testimony contained material inconsistencies and contradictions that rebutted the presumption of truth; documentary evidence (dispensary and counsel letters) did not establish identity of attackers or nexus to monk activities; no evidence of intent to resume monkhood; delay in claiming asylum in Israel and Canada and failure to seek asylum where able undermined credibility; on balance appellants failed to prove they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act