TB8-16079

TB8-16079

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found the appellants not credible based on significant omissions in the Basis of Claim, evolving and inconsistent testimony about an alleged election rigging incident and related events, and an unexplained two-year delay in seeking asylum; those credibility defects prevented the appellants from proving their claims on the balance of probabilities.

Citation
TB8-16079
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Final Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Delay in Claiming Asylum, Convention Refugee Status, Basis of Claim Omissions, Judicial Review of RPD
Source Language
English

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Final Appeal Decision

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in drawing negative credibility inferences
  2. 2 Whether the RPD placed undue emphasis on the two-year delay in claiming asylum
  3. 3 Whether the appellants established their claim on a balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found the appellants not credible based on significant omissions in the Basis of Claim, evolving and inconsistent testimony about an alleged election rigging incident and related events, and an unexplained two-year delay in seeking asylum; those credibility defects prevented the appellants from proving their claims on the balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection