MB8-22770

MB8-22770

The RAD confirms the RPD's adverse credibility findings: pervasive contradictions, omissions and document anomalies, together with absence of satisfactory corroboration, defeat the appellants' burden of proof; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB8-22770
Parties
Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under the IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Refugee Status Under S.96 IRPA, Person in Need of Protection Under S.97(1) IRPA, Standard of Review, Corroboration of Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Credibility Assessment Refugee Status Under S.96 IRPA Person in Need of Protection Under S.97(1) IRPA Standard of Review Corroboration of Evidence

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the appellants qualify as Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the appellants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD's adverse credibility findings: pervasive contradictions, omissions and document anomalies, together with absence of satisfactory corroboration, defeat the appellants' burden of proof; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under the IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the RPD determination