TB9-08028

TB9-08028

The RAD found the RPD's adverse credibility findings reasonable on the balance of probabilities: material omission of a suicide attempt from the BOC and testimony, unexplained delays in claiming, reavailment and vague testimony, together with lack of adequate corroboration, rebut the presumption of truth and defeat subjective fear; accordingly the RPD's decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is upheld under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Citation
TB9-08028
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Elder Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Younger Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, Delay in Claiming, Reavailment, Sexual Orientation, Gender Based Violence, SOGIE Guidelines, Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Delay in Claiming Reavailment Sexual Orientation Gender Based Violence +2 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Elder Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Younger Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the appellants
  2. 2 Whether the RPD properly applied SOGIE Guidelines in assessing sexual orientation claims
  3. 3 Whether documentary evidence overcame credibility concerns

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD's adverse credibility findings reasonable on the balance of probabilities: material omission of a suicide attempt from the BOC and testimony, unexplained delays in claiming, reavailment and vague testimony, together with lack of adequate corroboration, rebut the presumption of truth and defeat subjective fear; accordingly the RPD's decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is upheld under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed by Refugee Appeal Division
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to IRPA s.111(1)(a)