TB4-06495

TB4-06495

The RAD confirmed the RPD because material inconsistencies and omissions between the principal appellant's testimony and his Basis of Claim narrative and supporting documents justified the RPD's adverse credibility findings; the RPD reasonably assessed and applied the Gender Guidelines, child claimant guidance and Section 97 test, no admissible new evidence warranted an oral hearing, and on independent assessment the RAD reached the same conclusion: the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB4-06495
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX); Spouse / Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX); Child / Appellant: Minor Appellant (name redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision on Appeal (rad Confirmation/dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) of IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Sexual Orientation as Grounds for Persecution, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Risk, Procedural Fairness, Section 97 IRPA Protection Analysis, Gender Guidelines Application, Child Refugee Claimant Guideline, Standard of Review / RAD Role
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Sexual Orientation as Grounds for Persecution Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Risk Procedural Fairness Section 97 IRPA Protection Analysis +3 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Spouse / Appellant

Minor Appellant (name redacted)

Child / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision on Appeal (rad Confirmation/dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the RPD ignored or failed to consider relevant evidence and corroboration
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was breached by not meeting the female appellants and by failing to apply Chairperson's Gender Guidelines properly

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because material inconsistencies and omissions between the principal appellant's testimony and his Basis of Claim narrative and supporting documents justified the RPD's adverse credibility findings; the RPD reasonably assessed and applied the Gender Guidelines, child claimant guidance and Section 97 test, no admissible new evidence warranted an oral hearing, and on independent assessment the RAD reached the same conclusion: the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) of IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed