MB9-22873

MB9-22873

The appeals are dismissed because, on a balance of probabilities, material inconsistencies between the Principal Appellant's testimony and contemporaneous hospital and police records, implausible accounts (including the alleged five‑day hospital stay and temporary leave to attend police), the failure to seek protection in the United States, and the inadmissibility of the psychotherapist report under s.110(4) IRPA fatally undermined credibility; therefore the RPD decision is confirmed and the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-22873
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Failure to Claim Protection in the United States, New Evidence Admissibility, Gender Related Persecution Guideline
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Internal Flight Alternative Failure to Claim Protection in the United States New Evidence Admissibility Gender Related Persecution Guideline

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 credibility of the Principal Appellant's allegations (knife attack, hospital admission, police report)
  2. 2 admissibility of new psychotherapist report under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 failure to claim refugee protection in the United States and its relevance to credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals are dismissed because, on a balance of probabilities, material inconsistencies between the Principal Appellant's testimony and contemporaneous hospital and police records, implausible accounts (including the alleged five‑day hospital stay and temporary leave to attend police), the failure to seek protection in the United States, and the inadmissibility of the psychotherapist report under s.110(4) IRPA fatally undermined credibility; therefore the RPD decision is confirmed and the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of IRPA, the decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated August 19, 2019 is confirmed and the appeals are dismissed