MB8-06735

MB8-06735

The appeals are dismissed because the RPD reasonably found that significant, material and unexplained discrepancies concerning the central attack undermined the principal appellant's credibility; lack of spontaneity was noted but was not the determinative factor.

Citation
MB8-06735
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Child: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming Rpd)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Exclusion Under Third‑country Residence (s.98 IRPA / Article 1 E), Standard of Review (correctness Vs Deference)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Credibility Assessment Exclusion Under Third‑country Residence (s.98 IRPA / Article 1 E) Standard of Review (correctness Vs Deference)

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Child

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming Rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the principal appellant
  2. 2 Whether appellants were excluded from refugee protection under s.98 IRPA / Article 1E due to residence in Brazil

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals are dismissed because the RPD reasonably found that significant, material and unexplained discrepancies concerning the central attack undermined the principal appellant's credibility; lack of spontaneity was noted but was not the determinative factor.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection