TC0-02526

TC0-02526

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings against the Principal Appellant based on evolving testimony, material omissions in the BOC, unreliable supporting documents (unsworn letters and a dubious police summons), and found no sufficient change in country conditions; consequently the RPD decision was affirmed and the appeals dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TC0-02526
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spousal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; First Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Second Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Third Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision upheld; Appellants are neither refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Country Conditions Change, Evidence Weight and Authenticity, Adverse Credibility Findings, Procedural Requirement for Oral Hearing Under S.110(4) IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Country Conditions Change Evidence Weight and Authenticity Adverse Credibility Findings Procedural Requirement for Oral Hearing Under S.110(4) IRPA

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spousal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

First Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Second Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Third Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant's evidence was credible
  2. 2 Whether there has been sufficient change in country conditions to disturb the RPD's finding
  3. 3 Whether supporting letters and a police summons were reliable and material

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings against the Principal Appellant based on evolving testimony, material omissions in the BOC, unreliable supporting documents (unsworn letters and a dubious police summons), and found no sufficient change in country conditions; consequently the RPD decision was affirmed and the appeals dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision upheld; Appellants are neither refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.
  • RPD decision dated as in record is upheld.