TB8-15323

TB8-15323

The RAD found that, on a balance of probabilities, the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supportable: the principal appellant's account contained omissions and lack of corroboration (notably failure to obtain bank or syndicate documentation and inconsistencies between BOC, POE and testimony), and given the evidence on exit controls in Iran it was not credible that he would have left without difficulty; those credibility findings were not fatally microscopic and did not breach procedural fairness, therefore the RPD decision rejecting the refugee claims is confirmed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Citation
TB8-15323
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Gender Based Persecution, Child Refugee Claimants, Exit Bans
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness Gender Based Persecution Child Refugee Claimants Exit Bans

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility assessment
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to consider relevant evidence or made assumptions outside the record
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness/natural justice was breached by preconceived views or allowing additional evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found that, on a balance of probabilities, the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supportable: the principal appellant's account contained omissions and lack of corroboration (notably failure to obtain bank or syndicate documentation and inconsistencies between BOC, POE and testimony), and given the evidence on exit controls in Iran it was not credible that he would have left without difficulty; those credibility findings were not fatally microscopic and did not breach procedural fairness, therefore the RPD decision rejecting the refugee claims is confirmed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act