MB9-11972

MB9-11972

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by multiple material omissions, contradictions and evasive testimony central to the claim; the joint assessment complied with RPD Rules; there was no evidentiary basis for bias or reasonable apprehension of bias; gender/sexual-orientation guidelines were considered but do not excuse fatal deficiencies; appellants failed to prove risk under IRPA ss.96-97.

Citation
MB9-11972
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Bias (reasonable Apprehension), Gender Based Persecution, Sexual Orientation, Joint Assessment of Claims, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Credibility Assessment Bias (reasonable Apprehension) Gender Based Persecution Sexual Orientation +2 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the RPD demonstrated bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred by jointly assessing sibling claims

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by multiple material omissions, contradictions and evasive testimony central to the claim; the joint assessment complied with RPD Rules; there was no evidentiary basis for bias or reasonable apprehension of bias; gender/sexual-orientation guidelines were considered but do not excuse fatal deficiencies; appellants failed to prove risk under IRPA ss.96-97.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Determination confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA