MB5-00453

MB5-00453

The RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD because the principal claimant's core allegations were implausible and inconsistent (including delay in leaving, inability to identify alleged government actors, contradictions with documentary and medical evidence), the RPD reasonably discounted the medical/psychological report given credibility concerns, and no new admissible evidence was submitted that would justify a hearing or reversal.

Citation
MB5-00453
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant's Daughter: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant's Son: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Exclusion (article 1 F), Procedural Hearing Standards, Probative Value of Expert/medical Reports, Failure to Seek Protection Abroad
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Exclusion (article 1 F) Procedural Hearing Standards Probative Value of Expert/medical Reports Failure to Seek Protection Abroad

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant's Daughter

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant's Son

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the RPD err in its assessment of the appellants' credibility?
  2. 2 Was a hearing required under subsection 110(6) IRPA?
  3. 3 What probative value should be given to the medical/psychological report?

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD because the principal claimant's core allegations were implausible and inconsistent (including delay in leaving, inability to identify alleged government actors, contradictions with documentary and medical evidence), the RPD reasonably discounted the medical/psychological report given credibility concerns, and no new admissible evidence was submitted that would justify a hearing or reversal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination confirmed: appellants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA