MC0-05118

MC0-05118

The appeals are dismissed because the RAD found the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and supported by material inconsistencies, unexplained omissions in the Basis of Claim, implausible delay in the agents' conduct, and low probative value of corroborating affidavits; the RPD properly applied gender‑sensitive procedures and considered the psychotherapist report, and the Appellants therefore failed to prove a serious risk of persecution or need for protection under IRPA ss.96‑97.

Citation
MC0-05118
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal Decision (refugee Appeal Division)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Gender Based Persecution, Convention Refugee Status, Risk of Torture and Return Protection, Evidentiary Weight and Omissions, Procedural Fairness, Country Documentation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Credibility Findings Gender Based Persecution Convention Refugee Status Risk of Torture and Return Protection +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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal Decision (refugee Appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in its adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants established Convention refugee status or need for protection under IRPA ss.96-97
  3. 3 Whether the RPD improperly dismissed or failed to consider documentary and affidavit evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals are dismissed because the RAD found the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and supported by material inconsistencies, unexplained omissions in the Basis of Claim, implausible delay in the agents' conduct, and low probative value of corroborating affidavits; the RPD properly applied gender‑sensitive procedures and considered the psychotherapist report, and the Appellants therefore failed to prove a serious risk of persecution or need for protection under IRPA ss.96‑97.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed and RPD decision dated January 27, 2020 is confirmed