TB5-08495

TB5-08495

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were based on comprehensible reasoning and supported by evidence (contradictions about family planning visits, an ultrasound report inconsistent with a forced abortion, and omission of threatened punishment from the BoC), and therefore the Appellants failed to establish Convention refugee status or need for protection.

Citation
TB5-08495
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXXX XXXXX; Associated Appellant (husband): XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Appellant (son): XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Disposition on Merits Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(a)
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Family Planning Policy, Forced Abortion, Standard of Review, Deference to Administrative Tribunal
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Family Planning Policy Forced Abortion Standard of Review Deference to Administrative Tribunal

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXXX XXXXX

Associated Appellant (husband)

XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Appellant (son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Disposition on Merits Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in rejecting the claims on credibility grounds
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants established Convention refugee status or need for protection
  3. 3 What standard of review and degree of deference the RAD must apply to RPD credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were based on comprehensible reasoning and supported by evidence (contradictions about family planning visits, an ultrasound report inconsistent with a forced abortion, and omission of threatened punishment from the BoC), and therefore the Appellants failed to establish Convention refugee status or need for protection.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(a)

Orders

  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated July 30, 2015 confirmed
  • Appeals TB5-08495, TB5-08496, TB5-08497 dismissed