MB7-21113

MB7-21113

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants' central allegations were undermined by material contradictions and implausibilities (inconsistent addresses, unreliable complaint document, implausible identification of robbers, inadequate efforts to obtain documents, and contradictory explanations), and the evidence did not establish a subjective or objective well‑founded fear under s96 or a risk under s97; the husband's status in Brazil also supported the exclusion analysis regarding his claim.

Citation
MB7-21113
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees under s96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s97 IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Article 1 E Exclusion, Membership in a Particular Social Group, Risk Under Section 97 IRPA, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination Article 1 E Exclusion Membership in a Particular Social Group Risk Under Section 97 IRPA +1 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its assessment of the appellants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether the appellants qualify as Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants' central allegations were undermined by material contradictions and implausibilities (inconsistent addresses, unreliable complaint document, implausible identification of robbers, inadequate efforts to obtain documents, and contradictory explanations), and the evidence did not establish a subjective or objective well‑founded fear under s96 or a risk under s97; the husband's status in Brazil also supported the exclusion analysis regarding his claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees under s96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s97 IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision confirmed