MB9-19776

MB9-19776

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD correctly found the appellants lacked credibility based on material inconsistencies, contradictions and unexplained omissions (notably concerning the principal appellant's employment, passport issuance date and the associate appellant's place of residence); those failures were determinative, the appellants provided unsatisfactory explanations, the benefit of the doubt did not apply, and no new evidence justified an oral hearing, therefore the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-19776
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Reasons and Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Omission in Application Forms, Benefit of the Doubt, Standard of Review, Oral Hearing Request
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Omission in Application Forms Benefit of the Doubt Standard of Review Oral Hearing Request

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellants

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Reasons and Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether omissions in immigration forms and inconsistencies were significant enough to undermine the claim
  3. 3 Whether the benefit of the doubt applied

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD correctly found the appellants lacked credibility based on material inconsistencies, contradictions and unexplained omissions (notably concerning the principal appellant's employment, passport issuance date and the associate appellant's place of residence); those failures were determinative, the appellants provided unsatisfactory explanations, the benefit of the doubt did not apply, and no new evidence justified an oral hearing, therefore the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision confirmed