MB5-01281

MB5-01281

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the principal appellant's credibility was undermined by material omissions and inconsistencies in her written and oral accounts (notably failure to include gun incidents in the BOC, conflicting accounts about being asked to leave, inconsistent employment/visa information and travel history), combined with implausibilities (spouse authorizing travel) and trips abroad that together defeat the subjective and objective elements of a fear of persecution; therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Citation
MB5-01281
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Domestic Violence, Appeal Standards and RAD Remit, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Gender Based Persecution Domestic Violence Appeal Standards and RAD Remit Procedural Fairness

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the principal appellant
  2. 2 Whether the appellants meet the definitions of "Convention refugee" or "person in need of protection" under sections 96-97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether omissions/inconsistencies in the BOC and other forms justified adverse credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the principal appellant's credibility was undermined by material omissions and inconsistencies in her written and oral accounts (notably failure to include gun incidents in the BOC, conflicting accounts about being asked to leave, inconsistent employment/visa information and travel history), combined with implausibilities (spouse authorizing travel) and trips abroad that together defeat the subjective and objective elements of a fear of persecution; therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • No hearing held before the RAD; no new evidence accepted