MB9-05206

MB9-05206

The RAD confirmed the RPD's credibility findings: material contradictions and omissions (date of sister's death, omission from BOC, conflicting accounts about presence of wife, inconsistency with Exhibit D-4, and lack of corroboration for the female appellant's sexual assault) undermined the appellants' credibility on essential elements; accordingly they failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment on a balance of probabilities and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB9-05206
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Reasons and Decision by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Refugee Protection, Presumption of Truthfulness, Standard of Review, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Refugee Protection Presumption of Truthfulness Standard of Review Burden of Proof

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Reasons and Decision by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the appellants were credible
  2. 2 whether the RPD erred in applying the presumption of truthfulness
  3. 3 appropriate standard of review for RAD (correctness)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's credibility findings: material contradictions and omissions (date of sister's death, omission from BOC, conflicting accounts about presence of wife, inconsistency with Exhibit D-4, and lack of corroboration for the female appellant's sexual assault) undermined the appellants' credibility on essential elements; accordingly they failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment on a balance of probabilities and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA the RAD confirms the RPD determination that the appellants are neither Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA
  • Appeal dismissed