MB9-17441

MB9-17441

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the Appellants failed to credibly establish their claims: their core narrative was inconsistent and implausible (notably the alleged USD cash payment given Egypt's currency controls and EGP devaluation), documentary evidence contained omissions and contradictions and lacked probative value, and assertions about state protection were inconsistent; the negative credibility finding disposed of any need for separate section 96 or 97(1)(a) analyses.

Citation
MB9-17441
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse/co‑appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Co‑appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / RAD Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, State Protection, Section 97(1)(b) IRPA, Section 96 IRPA, Section 97(1)(a) IRPA, Corroboration, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility State Protection Section 97(1)(b) IRPA Section 96 IRPA Section 97(1)(a) IRPA +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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse/co‑appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Co‑appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / RAD Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants credibly established risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment under section 97(1)(b) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in credibility assessment and in failing to conduct separate analyses under sections 96 and 97(1)(a) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the Appellants failed to credibly establish their claims: their core narrative was inconsistent and implausible (notably the alleged USD cash payment given Egypt's currency controls and EGP devaluation), documentary evidence contained omissions and contradictions and lacked probative value, and assertions about state protection were inconsistent; the negative credibility finding disposed of any need for separate section 96 or 97(1)(a) analyses.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA