MB9-21959

MB9-21959

The RPD's adverse credibility findings were correct and dispositive: the principal appellant amended his account after Ministerial disclosure without a coherent explanation, he gave inconsistent testimony about the timing and nature of threats and about answers on arrival forms, and the submitted documents did not corroborate the key persecution incidents; therefore the appellants failed to show a serious possibility of persecution or need for protection and the RAD dismisses the appeal.

Citation
MB9-21959
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (wife): XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant (child): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal From a Refugee Protection Division Decision Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision by the Refugee Appeal Division Dismissing the Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed: appellants are not refugees nor persons in need of protection under section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Refusal of Refugee Protection, Documentary Evidence, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Refusal of Refugee Protection Documentary Evidence Standard of Review

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (wife)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant (child)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal From a Refugee Protection Division Decision Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision by the Refugee Appeal Division Dismissing the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in drawing an adverse credibility inference from the appellant's amendment of his account after the Minister's intervention
  2. 2 Whether inconsistencies between oral testimony and written statements/forms fatally undermine the claim
  3. 3 Whether the documentary evidence rehabilitates credibility or corroborates the core persecution allegations

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's adverse credibility findings were correct and dispositive: the principal appellant amended his account after Ministerial disclosure without a coherent explanation, he gave inconsistent testimony about the timing and nature of threats and about answers on arrival forms, and the submitted documents did not corroborate the key persecution incidents; therefore the appellants failed to show a serious possibility of persecution or need for protection and the RAD dismisses the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed: appellants are not refugees nor persons in need of protection under section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • The Refugee Appeal Division dismisses the appeal and confirms the Refugee Protection Division decision that the appellants are neither refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.