MB4-02186

MB4-02186

The RAD, applying established standards of review and affording deference to the RPD on credibility, independently assessed the evidence and found no palpable and overriding error in the RPD's adverse credibility findings (delay in departure and in claiming protection, use of real identity, lack of corroboration, internal inconsistencies); accordingly the appellants failed to prove their claims on a balance of probabilities and the RAD confirmed the RPD's decision dismissing the protection claims.

Citation
MB4-02186
Parties
Principal Appellant: Mr. XXXX XXXX; Spouse/appellant: Ms. XXXX XXXX; Child/appellant: XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa), Standard of Review/deference, Request for Oral Hearing
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa) Standard of Review/deference Request for Oral Hearing

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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

Ms. XXXX XXXX

Spouse/appellant

XXXX

Child/appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in its adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the appellants meet the definitions of Convention refugee (s.96 IRPA) or person in need of protection (s.97 IRPA)
  3. 3 Whether an oral hearing before the RAD was required under ss.110(3) and 110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD, applying established standards of review and affording deference to the RPD on credibility, independently assessed the evidence and found no palpable and overriding error in the RPD's adverse credibility findings (delay in departure and in claiming protection, use of real identity, lack of corroboration, internal inconsistencies); accordingly the appellants failed to prove their claims on a balance of probabilities and the RAD confirmed the RPD's decision dismissing the protection claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Request for oral hearing denied