TB3-09631

TB3-09631

The RAD applied a reasonableness standard and deferred to the RPD's credibility and fact findings because those findings were based on record evidence, material inconsistencies, omissions going to the heart of the claim, lack of corroboration and absence of medical evidence for alleged cognitive impairment; the Minister did not meet the onus to exclude the principal appellant under Article 1F(b); therefore the RPD's decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection was within the range of reasonable outcomes and was confirmed.

Citation
TB3-09631
Parties
Appellant(s): XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX; Intervener/respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision; No New Evidence Submitted to RAD
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b), Standard of Review, Corroboration Requirements, Country Conditions, State Protection, Persecution Assessment, Medical Evidence for Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b) Standard of Review Corroboration Requirements Country Conditions +3 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX

Appellant(s)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada

Intervener/respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision; No New Evidence Submitted to RAD

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD reasonably assessed appellants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether the principal appellant is excluded under Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention
  3. 3 Appropriate standard of review for RAD of RPD findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD applied a reasonableness standard and deferred to the RPD's credibility and fact findings because those findings were based on record evidence, material inconsistencies, omissions going to the heart of the claim, lack of corroboration and absence of medical evidence for alleged cognitive impairment; the Minister did not meet the onus to exclude the principal appellant under Article 1F(b); therefore the RPD's decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection was within the range of reasonable outcomes and was confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Pursuant to Section 111(1)(a) of IRPA the RAD confirms the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
  • No substitution or referral ordered; appeals dismissed