MB9-26727

MB9-26727

The RAD dismissed the appeal because there was no breach of procedural fairness and the RPD correctly found multiple, material omissions and inconsistencies in successive narratives and explanations that fatally undermined credibility; documentary evidence did not establish a risk of harm on the balance of probabilities; therefore appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-26727
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From Refugee Protection Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Documentary Evidence, Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness Documentary Evidence Risk Assessment

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 XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal Heard by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) From Refugee Protection Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness at the hearing or in its reasons
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellants' credibility based on omissions and inconsistent testimony
  3. 3 Whether documentary evidence corroborated the appellants' allegations of threats, kidnapping and risk of harm

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because there was no breach of procedural fairness and the RPD correctly found multiple, material omissions and inconsistencies in successive narratives and explanations that fatally undermined credibility; documentary evidence did not establish a risk of harm on the balance of probabilities; therefore appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed by RAD
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated October 21, 2019 is confirmed: appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA