MB9-15384

MB9-15384

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonably based on material contradictions, omissions and implausibilities in the claimant's testimony and in the peace court documents, which undermined the required showing of a serious possibility of persecution based on membership in the particular social group of women; the evidence did not establish lack of male protection or otherwise meet the IRPA thresholds for refugee or protected person status.

Citation
MB9-15384
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Particular Social Group, Documentary Evidence Authenticity, Convention Refugee Determination, Male Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Gender Based Persecution Particular Social Group Documentary Evidence Authenticity Convention Refugee Determination +1 more

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal appellant is credible regarding the agent of persecution and material events
  2. 2 Whether peace court complaint documents are authentic and consistent with testimony
  3. 3 Whether the appellants meet the threshold for Convention refugee status or are persons in need of protection under IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonably based on material contradictions, omissions and implausibilities in the claimant's testimony and in the peace court documents, which undermined the required showing of a serious possibility of persecution based on membership in the particular social group of women; the evidence did not establish lack of male protection or otherwise meet the IRPA thresholds for refugee or protected person status.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed