MB9-07926

MB9-07926

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings based on material inconsistencies and implausibilities in testimony and failure to explain key documentary evidence; because credibility was rejected, the appellants failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 IRPA or, on a balance of probabilities, a personal risk under s.97 IRPA, so the appeal is dismissed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB9-07926
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Minor Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Minor Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Gender Related Persecution, Convention Refugee Determination, Standard of Review, Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Gender Related Persecution Convention Refugee Determination Standard of Review 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Minor Male Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Minor Female Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal appellant's testimony and documentary evidence are credible
  2. 2 Whether alleged incidents constitute attempted kidnappings or targeted persecution
  3. 3 Whether the principal appellant faces a serious possibility of gender-related persecution in Haiti under section 96 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings based on material inconsistencies and implausibilities in testimony and failure to explain key documentary evidence; because credibility was rejected, the appellants failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 IRPA or, on a balance of probabilities, a personal risk under s.97 IRPA, so the appeal is dismissed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the RPD determination that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.