MB7-17254

MB7-17254

The RPD's adverse credibility assessment was justified because the appellant's conduct was inconsistent with someone who genuinely feared for their safety: prolonged unexplained delay in filing complaints, failure to alter a phone number used for threats, failure to claim asylum when present in the United States and the Dominican Republic, and returning to allegedly unsafe territory; on independent review these findings are correct and require dismissal of the appeal under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB7-17254
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of Rpd) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Failure to Claim Asylum, Delay in Reporting, Minor Child Claim
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Failure to Claim Asylum Delay in Reporting Minor Child Claim

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of Rpd) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether delay in filing police complaints and failure to claim asylum undermine the protection claim
  3. 3 Whether the associate appellant (minor) has an independent basis for a claim

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's adverse credibility assessment was justified because the appellant's conduct was inconsistent with someone who genuinely feared for their safety: prolonged unexplained delay in filing complaints, failure to alter a phone number used for threats, failure to claim asylum when present in the United States and the Dominican Republic, and returning to allegedly unsafe territory; on independent review these findings are correct and require dismissal of the appeal under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that the 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 appeal is dismissed and the Refugee Protection Division determination is confirmed.