TB5-03289

TB5-03289

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellants were found generally not credible based on numerous inconsistencies, unjustified delays, unsatisfactory explanations, and inconclusive documentary and medical evidence, and there was insufficient reliable objective evidence of persecution or risk to life or torture on return.

Citation
TB5-03289
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Under IRPA / Final Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Refugee Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Documentary Evidence, Delay in Filing, RAD Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Refugee Protection Gender Based Persecution Documentary Evidence Delay in Filing +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Under IRPA / Final Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether delays in applying for visas and in filing refugee claims undermine claim of fear of persecution
  3. 3 Whether documentary and medical evidence corroborate allegations of torture and sexual assault

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellants were found generally not credible based on numerous inconsistencies, unjustified delays, unsatisfactory explanations, and inconclusive documentary and medical evidence, and there was insufficient reliable objective evidence of persecution or risk to life or torture on return.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the decision of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed