TB4-11628

TB4-11628

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellants' material inconsistencies and omissions across oral testimony and written records, the failure to seek asylum in Italy without satisfactory explanation, and the lack of reliable, authenticated corroborative documentary evidence justified adverse credibility findings and a conclusion that the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB4-11628
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Redetermination/decision by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review, Weight of Documentary Evidence, Safe Third Country/asylum in First Country of Arrival, Blood Feud Claims
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Standard of Review Weight of Documentary Evidence Safe Third Country/asylum in First Country of Arrival Blood Feud Claims

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Redetermination/decision by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether failure to seek asylum in Italy permits negative inference
  3. 3 Whether documentary evidence overcomes adverse credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Appellants' material inconsistencies and omissions across oral testimony and written records, the failure to seek asylum in Italy without satisfactory explanation, and the lack of reliable, authenticated corroborative documentary evidence justified adverse credibility findings and a conclusion that the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division determination confirmed