MB9-00267

MB9-00267

The RAD, applying correctness, found the appellants not credible based on inconsistent testimony and behaviour (repeated returns to Haiti despite alleged targeting), and documentary inconsistencies; the RPD reasonably declined to attach probative value to the peace court extracts; appellants failed to establish an individualized risk or persecution related to membership in the claimed particular social group; therefore the RPD decision rejecting refugee protection on credibility grounds is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB9-00267
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division (credibility Assessment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Particular Social Group, Generalized Insecurity, Documentary Evidence, Standard of Review, Oral Hearing/new Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Particular Social Group Generalized Insecurity Documentary Evidence Standard of Review +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (minor)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division (credibility Assessment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment
  2. 2 Whether the RPD should have attached probative value to peace court documents
  3. 3 Whether appellants face individualized risk distinguishable from generalized insecurity under s.97(1) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD, applying correctness, found the appellants not credible based on inconsistent testimony and behaviour (repeated returns to Haiti despite alleged targeting), and documentary inconsistencies; the RPD reasonably declined to attach probative value to the peace court extracts; appellants failed to establish an individualized risk or persecution related to membership in the claimed particular social group; therefore the RPD decision rejecting refugee protection on credibility grounds is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD determination confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
  • Request for an oral hearing denied (no new evidence pursuant to s.110(3) IRPA).