MB4-03056

MB4-03056

The RAD granted deference to the RPD's findings on credibility but conducted an independent assessment and concluded the RPD did not make palpable and overriding errors: the appellants' testimony contained material omissions and inconsistencies, the factual narrative lacked plausibility, corroborative documents and affidavits were not probative, and delay in claiming raised credibility concerns; therefore appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection, and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB4-03056
Parties
Principal Appellant: MrXXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse/appellant: Ms. XXXX XXXX; Son/appellant: Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Daughter/appellant: Ms. XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (final)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee (s.96 Irpa), Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa), Corroborative Evidence, Delay in Claiming, Standard of Review/deference
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee (s.96 Irpa) Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa) Corroborative Evidence Delay in Claiming +1 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MrXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

Ms. XXXX XXXX

Spouse/appellant

Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Son/appellant

Ms. XXXX XXXX

Daughter/appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether appellants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in its adverse credibility findings (omissions, inconsistencies, implausibility)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD granted deference to the RPD's findings on credibility but conducted an independent assessment and concluded the RPD did not make palpable and overriding errors: the appellants' testimony contained material omissions and inconsistencies, the factual narrative lacked plausibility, corroborative documents and affidavits were not probative, and delay in claiming raised credibility concerns; therefore appellants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection, and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The Refugee Protection Division decision dated July 9, 2014 is confirmed.