TB8-33030

On balance of probabilities the Appellants were not credible that the principal Appellant was a senior APFP member or was harmed as alleged; documentary and testimonial inconsistencies, reavailment, delay and failure to claim in the US undermined subjective fear; therefore they do not meet the threshold in s.97(1) IRPA and the RPD decision is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation: TB8-33030
Parties: Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court: Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 23 July 2019
Procedural Posture: Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal / Reasons for Decision
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed
Legal Topics: Credibility Findings, Subjective Fear, Persecution, Documentary Evidence, Reavailment and Delay, Standard of Review
Source Language: English

Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Subjective Fear Persecution Documentary Evidence Reavailment and Delay +1 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 11 Party arguments 2

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal / Reasons for Decision

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Appellants are credible
2 Whether the principal Appellant faces a subjective fear of persecution
3 Whether documentary evidence supports membership and political activity in APFP

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed

Orders

Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection