MB9-03367

MB9-03367

After an independent review of the record and hearing recording, the RAD concluded the RPD correctly found the appellants not credible. Multiple contradictions in oral testimony and documentary evidence (notably the death certificate time discrepancy), evasive answers about the appellant's long US stay and failure to seek status information, plus the lack of readily obtainable corroborating family evidence, justified giving minimal weight to the claim. Therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Citation
MB9-03367
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Secondary Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review, Corroborating Evidence, Convention Refugee Determination, Particular Social Group (family)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence and Credibility Credibility Assessment Standard of Review Corroborating Evidence Convention Refugee Determination +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Secondary Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether documentary inconsistency (death certificate/time of death) undermines claim
  3. 3 Whether omission of alleged perpetrator's name was material

Ratio Decidendi

After an independent review of the record and hearing recording, the RAD concluded the RPD correctly found the appellants not credible. Multiple contradictions in oral testimony and documentary evidence (notably the death certificate time discrepancy), evasive answers about the appellant's long US stay and failure to seek status information, plus the lack of readily obtainable corroborating family evidence, justified giving minimal weight to the claim. Therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection