MB9-14167

MB9-14167

The RAD concluded the RPD did not err: the claimant's testimony was found not credible; the submitted marriage certificate had indicia undermining its authenticity and probative value; failure to produce reasonably expectable corroborative documents and to seek assistance despite ability and means justified the RPD's adverse credibility findings; application of Guideline 4 did not require a different result; accordingly the claimant is neither a refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Citation
MB9-14167
Parties
Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Reasons for Decision (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Evidentiary Weight of Documents, Gender Based Persecution, Application of Chairperson's Guideline 4, Burden to Provide Corroborative Documents, Delay in Leaving Country as Credibility Factor
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Evidentiary Weight of Documents Gender Based Persecution Application of Chairperson's Guideline 4 Burden to Provide Corroborative Documents +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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Reasons for Decision (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing claimant credibility
  2. 2 Whether the copy of the sharia marriage certificate had probative value
  3. 3 Whether Chairperson's Guideline 4 required a different credibility assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD did not err: the claimant's testimony was found not credible; the submitted marriage certificate had indicia undermining its authenticity and probative value; failure to produce reasonably expectable corroborative documents and to seek assistance despite ability and means justified the RPD's adverse credibility findings; application of Guideline 4 did not require a different result; accordingly the claimant is neither a refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision of June 10, 2019 confirmed: claimant not a refugee under section 96 nor a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act