MB9-08222

MB9-08222

The RAD applied the correctness standard, upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings as they were based on material inconsistencies, omissions and unexplained delay, and found the documentary evidence insufficient to overcome those findings; accordingly the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they are at risk and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Citation
MB9-08222
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, Risk Assessment, Procedural Review, Corroboration of Documentary Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Risk Assessment Procedural Review Corroboration of Documentary Evidence

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the RPD erred in adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 whether delay in leaving country undermines claim credibility
  3. 3 whether documentary evidence corroborates the core allegations

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD applied the correctness standard, upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings as they were based on material inconsistencies, omissions and unexplained delay, and found the documentary evidence insufficient to overcome those findings; accordingly the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they are at risk and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act