TB8-04770

TB8-04770

The RPD properly found that material omissions in the Appellants' BOCs and evolving testimony undermined their credibility, there was no objective evidence to support the asserted risk (including that the XXXX Resistance used spies), the Appellants failed to meet their evidentiary burden, and therefore they are...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB8-04770
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Canada (Minister)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Burden of Proof, Omissions in Basis of Claim
Source Language
english
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Burden of Proof Omissions in Basis of Claim

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Canada (Minister)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the credibility of the Principal Appellant and the female Appellant
  2. 2 Whether omissions from the Basis of Claim were material and justified adverse credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants met the burden to establish Convention refugee status or need for protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD properly found that material omissions in the Appellants' BOCs and evolving testimony undermined their credibility, there was no objective evidence to support the asserted risk (including that the XXXX Resistance used spies), the Appellants failed to meet their evidentiary burden, and therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection; the RAD found no error and confirmed the RPD under s.111(1)(a) of the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act