MB9-15400

MB9-15400

The RAD confirmed the RPD because, on independent review, the claimants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they face persecution or serious harm; material contradictions and omissions and lack of corroborative documentation justified discounting their evidence, and any limited RPD failure to reference the Gender Guidelines was harmless to the overall adverse credibility findings.

Citation
MB9-15400
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Gender Related Persecution, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness Gender Related Persecution Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to question the Principal Appellant about a medical report
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred by failing to apply the Gender Guidelines in credibility assessment
  3. 3 Whether material contradictions and omissions in testimony and documents justified discounting the claimants' evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because, on independent review, the claimants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they face persecution or serious harm; material contradictions and omissions and lack of corroborative documentation justified discounting their evidence, and any limited RPD failure to reference the Gender Guidelines was harmless to the overall adverse credibility findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision of June 17, 2019 confirmed; Appellants not designated Convention refugees or persons in need of protection