TB6-05479

TB6-05479

The RAD confirms the RPD because the keystone allegation that the principal appellant owned and operated the business is not credible on the balance of probabilities given material inconsistencies in testimony (including omission from visa application and inconsistent accounts of travel and payments) and the documentary evidence is insufficiently reliable or explainable; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution and the appeals are dismissed.

Citation
TB6-05479
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Documentary Corroboration, Standard of Review, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Documentary Corroboration Standard of Review Convention Refugee Determination

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal appellant owned and operated the alleged business in Nepal
  2. 2 Whether adverse credibility findings as to testimony invalidate corroborating documentary evidence
  3. 3 Whether there is a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture/cruel treatment on return

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD because the keystone allegation that the principal appellant owned and operated the business is not credible on the balance of probabilities given material inconsistencies in testimony (including omission from visa application and inconsistent accounts of travel and payments) and the documentary evidence is insufficiently reliable or explainable; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution and the appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act