TB9-01789

TB9-01789

The RAD confirmed the RPD's credibility finding: the alleged incident of 'bumping' into the ex-partner was implausible on the evidence and the Principal Appellant's extended residence in two safe countries without claiming asylum undermined her asserted subjective fear; absent credible testimony and supporting evidence the RPD did not err in declining to accept a s.97 claim and correctly concluded the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB9-01789
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons and Decision (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Failure to Claim in Safe Third Country, Subjective Fear (s.96 Irpa), Non State Actor Risk (s.97 Irpa), Gender Based Persecution, Female Genital Mutilation, Chairperson's Guideline 4
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Failure to Claim in Safe Third Country Subjective Fear (s.96 Irpa) Non State Actor Risk (s.97 Irpa) Gender Based Persecution +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons and Decision (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in making an adverse credibility finding based on a single implausibility
  2. 2 Whether the RPD unreasonably assessed the Principal Appellant's explanation for not claiming asylum in two prior safe countries
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to make a section 97 assessment regarding risk from non-state actors

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's credibility finding: the alleged incident of 'bumping' into the ex-partner was implausible on the evidence and the Principal Appellant's extended residence in two safe countries without claiming asylum undermined her asserted subjective fear; absent credible testimony and supporting evidence the RPD did not err in declining to accept a s.97 claim and correctly concluded the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act