TC2-03759

TC2-03759

The appellants' numerous significant inconsistencies and omissions rebutted the presumption of truthfulness so that, on a balance of probabilities, they failed to establish past persecution or a real risk of persecution or s.97 harm; written response submissions were admissible under IRPA s.110(4) but did not cure credibility deficiencies; no oral hearing was warranted under s.110(6); consequently the appeal is dismissed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Citation
TC2-03759
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; appellants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing Under IRPA, Convention Refugee Status, S.97 Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Oral Hearing Under IRPA Convention Refugee Status +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' sworn evidence remains entitled to the presumption of truth
  2. 2 Whether the appellants have established past persecution or a risk on a balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative exists in Bengaluru

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants' numerous significant inconsistencies and omissions rebutted the presumption of truthfulness so that, on a balance of probabilities, they failed to establish past persecution or a real risk of persecution or s.97 harm; written response submissions were admissible under IRPA s.110(4) but did not cure credibility deficiencies; no oral hearing was warranted under s.110(6); consequently the appeal is dismissed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; appellants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(a)
  • Written response submissions admitted as new evidence under IRPA s.110(4)