TB7-00124

TB7-00124

The RAD affirmed the RPD because multiple sustainable adverse credibility findings (inconsistent testimony on key events, implausible conduct by husband, omission of prior visa applications, and questionable party membership receipts) together rendered the appellants unable to meet the balance of probabilities standard to establish persecution or membership/profile claimed; incomplete passport evidence left material issues unresolved, so the RPD decision was confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-00124
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Adult Son: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeals / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision on the Record
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, Persecution, Political Opinion, Gender Based Violence, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Credibility Persecution Political Opinion Gender Based Violence Procedural Fairness

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Adult Son

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeals / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision on the Record

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the RPD erred in finding the appellants not credible
  2. 2 whether the appellants established Convention refugee or person in need of protection status on a balance of probabilities
  3. 3 proper role and standard of review for the RAD in assessing first-instance RPD decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirmed the RPD because multiple sustainable adverse credibility findings (inconsistent testimony on key events, implausible conduct by husband, omission of prior visa applications, and questionable party membership receipts) together rendered the appellants unable to meet the balance of probabilities standard to establish persecution or membership/profile claimed; incomplete passport evidence left material issues unresolved, so the RPD decision was confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • The Refugee Appeal Division confirms the Refugee Protection Division decision denying refugee protection