MB9-01393

MB9-01393

The RPD reasonably found multiple unexplained contradictions and omissions between the appellant's testimony and her written statements (including identity, who was feared, who was present during attacks, and residence history); the unexplained inconsistencies fatally undermined credibility so the appellant failed to prove the alleged attacks occurred on a balance of probabilities and the appeal is dismissed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB9-01393
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal: Brigitte Objois; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision Issued
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated December 5, 2018 confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, State Protection, Residual Profile, Appeal Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination State Protection Residual Profile Appeal Review

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Brigitte Objois

Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was credible regarding the alleged political attacks
  2. 2 Whether the alleged attacks occurred on a balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether the son had a well‑founded fear given his US citizenship and available state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD reasonably found multiple unexplained contradictions and omissions between the appellant's testimony and her written statements (including identity, who was feared, who was present during attacks, and residence history); the unexplained inconsistencies fatally undermined credibility so the appellant failed to prove the alleged attacks occurred on a balance of probabilities and the appeal is dismissed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated December 5, 2018 confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated December 5, 2018 is confirmed; appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection