MB8-13769

MB8-13769

The RAD affirms the RPD's adverse credibility finding because the principal appellant's core allegations were materially undermined by contradictions, omissions, vagueness and implausibilities across testimony and documents (passport, political involvement, identity of persecutors, threats, addresses, and failure to seek asylum), and because the appellants failed to establish that the United States would be unable or unwilling to protect the minor, therefore the RPD decision rejecting refugee protection is upheld.

Citation
MB8-13769
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision (reasons and Decision Dated May 15, 2019)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Refugee Status, Protection Elsewhere, Specialized Knowledge, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Refugee Status Protection Elsewhere Specialized Knowledge Procedural Fairness

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

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision (reasons and Decision Dated May 15, 2019)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the principal appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether the minor is a refugee or a person in need of protection and whether the United States would be unable or unwilling to protect her
  3. 3 Whether the RPD/member improperly relied on specialized knowledge without notice

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirms the RPD's adverse credibility finding because the principal appellant's core allegations were materially undermined by contradictions, omissions, vagueness and implausibilities across testimony and documents (passport, political involvement, identity of persecutors, threats, addresses, and failure to seek asylum), and because the appellants failed to establish that the United States would be unable or unwilling to protect the minor, therefore the RPD decision rejecting refugee protection is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division decision confirmed