MB9-05888

MB9-05888

The RAD dismissed the appeal because, on independent review, the RPD properly rejected the Principal Appellant's claim as not credible due to material inconsistencies between early immigration forms, the BOC and oral testimony and conduct incompatible with a genuine fear of return; consequently there is no serious possibility of persecution or need for protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB9-05888
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (rad Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Persecution on Basis of Sexual Orientation, Country Conditions, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Persecution on Basis of Sexual Orientation Country Conditions Standard of Review

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (rad Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to assess risk on return for a homosexual appellant
  3. 3 Whether corroborative evidence was disregarded

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because, on independent review, the RPD properly rejected the Principal Appellant's claim as not credible due to material inconsistencies between early immigration forms, the BOC and oral testimony and conduct incompatible with a genuine fear of return; consequently there is no serious possibility of persecution or need for protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and the decision of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act