MB3-03152

MB3-03152

The RAD dismisses the appeal because the RPD's adverse credibility findings and prospective assessment that the appellants did not credibly establish a well‑founded fear of persecution were reasonable, fell within a range of acceptable outcomes, and the RPD's failure to explicitly cite Guideline 4 did not amount to reversible error given the RPD considered the allegations and factual circumstances.

Citation
MB3-03152
Parties
Principal Appellant; Designated Representative for Minor Claimants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Application of Guideline 4 (women Refugee Claimants), Standard of Review (reasonableness), Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Gender Based Persecution Application of Guideline 4 (women Refugee Claimants) Standard of Review (reasonableness) Burden of Proof

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant; Designated Representative for Minor Claimants

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the principal appellant
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to apply or consider Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution
  3. 3 What standard of review the RAD should apply to RPD credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismisses the appeal because the RPD's adverse credibility findings and prospective assessment that the appellants did not credibly establish a well‑founded fear of persecution were reasonable, fell within a range of acceptable outcomes, and the RPD's failure to explicitly cite Guideline 4 did not amount to reversible error given the RPD considered the allegations and factual circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA and not persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA