TB8-29757

TB8-29757

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found the Appellants not credible due to significant omissions and inconsistent accounts, the evidence does not establish a link between the local dispute and extremist groups, and the objective record does not show a serious possibility of persecution as Shia Muslims or that the co-Appellant faces a compounded risk as a Shia woman; the request for an oral hearing failed s.110(6) IRPA criteria.

Citation
TB8-29757
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal: Kristina Cooke, Barrister; Tribunal Member: Ayanna Roberts
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Division Decision Appealed to Refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Persecution Risk, Gender Based Risk, Internal Flight Alternative, Procedural Fairness (oral Hearing)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Persecution Risk Gender Based Risk Internal Flight Alternative Procedural Fairness (oral Hearing)

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

Kristina Cooke, Barrister

Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal

Ayanna Roberts

Tribunal Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Division Decision Appealed to Refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants are credible
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants face a serious possibility of persecution as Shia Muslims in Pakistan
  3. 3 Whether the co-Appellant faces a compounded risk as a Shia Muslim woman in Pakistan

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found the Appellants not credible due to significant omissions and inconsistent accounts, the evidence does not establish a link between the local dispute and extremist groups, and the objective record does not show a serious possibility of persecution as Shia Muslims or that the co-Appellant faces a compounded risk as a Shia woman; the request for an oral hearing failed s.110(6) IRPA criteria.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Request for an oral hearing rejected