MB9-28280

MB9-28280

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD found the appellant not credible: testimony contained adjustments and contradictions, the appellant's return trips to the United States and Dominican Republic were behaviour inconsistent with the alleged fear, omission of Mirebalais and prevarications undermined the account, and objective evidence did not establish a prospective risk tied to prior employment; therefore the RPD correctly concluded he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-28280
Parties
Appellant (person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal): XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision upheld (appellant not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection).
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Convention Refugee Status, Procedure Oral Hearing
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Convention Refugee Status Procedure 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal)

Minister of Immigration

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is credible
  2. 2 Whether RPD considered all evidence and specifics of the claim
  3. 3 Whether return trips to the US and Dominican Republic were inconsistent with alleged fear

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD found the appellant not credible: testimony contained adjustments and contradictions, the appellant's return trips to the United States and Dominican Republic were behaviour inconsistent with the alleged fear, omission of Mirebalais and prevarications undermined the account, and objective evidence did not establish a prospective risk tied to prior employment; therefore the RPD correctly concluded he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision upheld (appellant not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection).

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision affirmed
  • Request for oral hearing denied under s.100(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (no new evidence)