MB9-05336

MB9-05336

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD reasonably found the appellants not credible due to unexplained contradictions, omissions and documentary inconsistencies (including inconsistent dates and events and the contradictory account of land acquisition) which defeated proof on a balance of probabilities and prevented establishment of a serious possibility of persecution or a risk under s.97(1) IRPA; the minor had no fear in the United States.

Citation
MB9-05336
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant (son): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Claim) / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Documentary Evidence, Fundamental Rights
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Documentary Evidence Fundamental Rights

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant (son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Claim) / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were credible given contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies
  2. 2 Whether the principal appellant acquired land in 2011 or 2014 and the weight to give the notarial deed
  3. 3 Whether the associate appellant consistently reported incidents and their motive

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD reasonably found the appellants not credible due to unexplained contradictions, omissions and documentary inconsistencies (including inconsistent dates and events and the contradictory account of land acquisition) which defeated proof on a balance of probabilities and prevented establishment of a serious possibility of persecution or a risk under s.97(1) IRPA; the minor had no fear in the United States.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Determination of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.