TB6-03567

TB6-03567

The RAD confirmed the RPD: material inconsistencies and omissions across POE/Schedule A/BOC, unexplained delays in leaving India and in making refugee claims in Canada, and failure to produce reasonably-expected corroboration rebutted sworn testimony and left no residual evidence to establish a well-founded fear under s.96 or a personal risk under s.97, so appeals were dismissed.

Citation
TB6-03567
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision on Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Refugee Protection (s.96), Person in Need of Protection (s.97), Standard of Review / RAD Role, Corroboration, Delay in Claiming, Gender Related Persecution, Natural Justice
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Refugee Protection (s.96) Person in Need of Protection (s.97) Standard of Review / RAD Role Corroboration +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision on Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in law or fact in finding the appellants not credible
  2. 2 Whether omissions and inconsistencies defeated the appellants' refugee and protection claims under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the panel failed to apply Chair's Guidelines on women claimants or breached natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: material inconsistencies and omissions across POE/Schedule A/BOC, unexplained delays in leaving India and in making refugee claims in Canada, and failure to produce reasonably-expected corroboration rebutted sworn testimony and left no residual evidence to establish a well-founded fear under s.96 or a personal risk under s.97, so appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

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