MB9-04259

MB9-04259

The RPD's adverse credibility findings, supported by repeated contradictions, evasive testimony and omissions on central elements of the claim, were reasonable; the female appellant was not shown to belong to a particularly vulnerable category of women under section 96 and did not establish a serious possibility of persecution; documentary evidence lacked probative value absent credible testimony; procedural fairness requirements were met; therefore the RAD confirmed the RPD and dismissed the appeal.

Citation
MB9-04259
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination dated February 11, 2019 confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Particular Social Group (women), Procedural Fairness, Documentary Evidence Weight, Internal Flight Alternative, Statutory Interpretation of IRPA S.96, S.97, S.111
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Credibility Assessment Particular Social Group (women) Procedural Fairness Documentary Evidence Weight +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the appellants
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to analyze the female appellant's claim under section 96 (particular social group)
  3. 3 Whether principles of procedural fairness were breached by not allowing explanations

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's adverse credibility findings, supported by repeated contradictions, evasive testimony and omissions on central elements of the claim, were reasonable; the female appellant was not shown to belong to a particularly vulnerable category of women under section 96 and did not establish a serious possibility of persecution; documentary evidence lacked probative value absent credible testimony; procedural fairness requirements were met; therefore the RAD confirmed the RPD and dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination dated February 11, 2019 confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • RPD decision of February 11, 2019 confirmed