TB6-15206

TB6-15206

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants' claims suffered multiple, significant credibility defects (omission of key fears from POE interviews, inconsistent and evolving testimony, unexplained documentary discrepancy in the marriage certificate, uncorroborated assertions concerning Facebook threats and the withdrawal/revocation of claims) which the psychological report did not materially explain; accordingly the RPD's adverse credibility finding was sustained and the appellants failed to establish refugee or protection claims.

Citation
TB6-15206
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division — Final Determination
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Gender Guidelines, Standard of Review, Port of Entry Interviews, Psychological Evidence, Withdrawal of Claims, Documentary Inconsistency
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment State Protection Gender Guidelines Standard of Review Port of Entry Interviews +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division — Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to properly consider the principal applicant's psychological report
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to apply or consider the Gender Guidelines

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants' claims suffered multiple, significant credibility defects (omission of key fears from POE interviews, inconsistent and evolving testimony, unexplained documentary discrepancy in the marriage certificate, uncorroborated assertions concerning Facebook threats and the withdrawal/revocation of claims) which the psychological report did not materially explain; accordingly the RPD's adverse credibility finding was sustained and the appellants failed to establish refugee or protection claims.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated October 13, 2016 is confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection