MC0-08430

MC0-08430

The Appellant's central evidence was not credible and was internally inconsistent (inability to identify attackers, equivocal link between attacks and basketball, lack of corroboration, and unreasonable explanation for not claiming in the U.S.), therefore he failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he faces persecution or serious prospect of harm and the RPD's rejection of his claim was correct.

Citation
MC0-08430
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Immigration; Panel Member / Decision Maker: Susan Brown
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (final)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Persecution, Social Group (s.96 Irpa), Procedural Fairness, Delay in Claiming Asylum
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Persecution Social Group (s.96 Irpa) Procedural Fairness Delay in Claiming Asylum

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister of Immigration

Respondent / Minister

Susan Brown

Panel Member / Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant qualifies as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant belonged to a social group under s.96 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant's central evidence was not credible and was internally inconsistent (inability to identify attackers, equivocal link between attacks and basketball, lack of corroboration, and unreasonable explanation for not claiming in the U.S.), therefore he failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he faces persecution or serious prospect of harm and the RPD's rejection of his claim was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed. The Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.