MB9-18868

MB9-18868

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings: material contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies with objective documentary evidence (including NDP on Angola) fatally undermined the appellants' accounts so they did not establish a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 IRPA nor a risk under s.97 IRPA; appeal is therefore dismissed.

Citation
MB9-18868
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Appeal Heard; Reasons and Decision Issued by RAD
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination (s.96 Irpa), Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa), Gender Based Persecution, Religion Based Persecution, Documentary Evidence Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination (s.96 Irpa) Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa) Gender Based Persecution Religion Based Persecution +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Appeal Heard; Reasons and Decision Issued by RAD

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether appellants meet definition of Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether appellants face a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment under s.97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings: material contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies with objective documentary evidence (including NDP on Angola) fatally undermined the appellants' accounts so they did not establish a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 IRPA nor a risk under s.97 IRPA; appeal is therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act