MB8-03855

MB8-03855

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings—based on significant omissions, inconsistencies, implausibilities and lack of independent corroboration touching core facts of the claim—and concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, thus dismissing the appeals.

Citation
MB8-03855
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX; Appellant Spouse: XXXX XXXX; Appellant Child: XXXX XXXX; Respondent Minister: Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal Decision Confirming Refugee Protection Division Determination
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Persons in Need of Protection, Supporting Documentary Evidence, Delay in Claiming
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Persons in Need of Protection Supporting Documentary Evidence Delay in Claiming

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Spouse

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Child

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada

Respondent Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal Decision Confirming Refugee Protection Division Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its assessment of credibility
  2. 2 Whether the RPD improperly discounted supporting documentary evidence
  3. 3 Whether delay in making the refugee claim undermined subjective fear

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings—based on significant omissions, inconsistencies, implausibilities and lack of independent corroboration touching core facts of the claim—and concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, thus dismissing the appeals.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection