MB4-01899

MB4-01899

Applying the applicable appellate standard, the RAD gave deference to the RPD on credibility but performed its own review and found no palpable and overriding error in the RPD’s findings regarding lack of specificity, implausibility of key events and absence of corroboration; therefore the RPD’s rejection of the refugee claim stands and the appellants do not qualify under ss.96 or 97 IRPA.

Citation
MB4-01899
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX; Appellant Spouse: XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Following RPD Determination; No New Evidence and No RAD Hearing Requested
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Standard of Review, Role of RAD
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Standard of Review Role of RAD

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Following RPD Determination; No New Evidence and No RAD Hearing Requested

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD made a palpable and overriding error in assessing the appellants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether the appellants qualify as Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA or persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 What standard and scope of review the RAD must apply when reviewing RPD findings

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the applicable appellate standard, the RAD gave deference to the RPD on credibility but performed its own review and found no palpable and overriding error in the RPD’s findings regarding lack of specificity, implausibility of key events and absence of corroboration; therefore the RPD’s rejection of the refugee claim stands and the appellants do not qualify under ss.96 or 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • The determination of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed: the appellants are not Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA and are not persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  • No referral to the RPD for re-determination and no hearing before the RAD was held