MB9-18098

MB9-18098

On independent review the RAD upheld the RPD's central credibility findings despite one error about discounting family letters; the appellants made central omissions at arrival that were unexplained and implausible, the failure to seek asylum or inquire in the U.S. was inconsistent with claimed fear, and documentary evidence including medical reports did not sufficiently corroborate that the uncle caused the alleged harm; consequently appellants failed to prove refugee status or need for protection on a balance of probabilities.

Citation
MB9-18098
Parties
Principal Appellant (father): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Second Appellant (mother): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellants (children): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal: Sarah Dennene; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD dated July 19, 2019 confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Asylum Claim, Failure to Seek Asylum in Third Country, Evidence and Corroboration, Delay in Fleeing, Gender Related Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Gender Based Violence Credibility Assessment Asylum Claim Failure to Seek Asylum in Third Country Evidence and Corroboration +2 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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant (father)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Second Appellant (mother)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellants (children)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Sarah Dennene

Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants were credible
  2. 2 Whether omissions at port of entry justified adverse inference
  3. 3 Whether failure to seek asylum in the U.S. undermines claimed fear

Ratio Decidendi

On independent review the RAD upheld the RPD's central credibility findings despite one error about discounting family letters; the appellants made central omissions at arrival that were unexplained and implausible, the failure to seek asylum or inquire in the U.S. was inconsistent with claimed fear, and documentary evidence including medical reports did not sufficiently corroborate that the uncle caused the alleged harm; consequently appellants failed to prove refugee status or need for protection on a balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD dated July 19, 2019 confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated July 19, 2019 is confirmed