TB9-15557

TB9-15557

The RAD independently reviewed the record and found that multiple central documents were demonstrably irregular, internally inconsistent or likely fabricated and that corroborative evidence was absent; those fraudulent documents fatally undermined the appellants' credibility on the core allegations, so the RPD did not err in rejecting the refugee and protection claims; RAD confirms RPD under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB9-15557
Parties
Principal Appellant: Mrs. XXXX XXXX XXXX; Mother/appellant: Mrs. XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Reviewing RPD Decision) / Appeal Decision (rad Confirmation/dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Fraudulent Documents, Procedural Fairness and Accommodation for Vulnerable Persons, Assessment of Corroborative Evidence, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Fraudulent Documents Procedural Fairness and Accommodation for Vulnerable Persons Assessment of Corroborative Evidence Standard of Review

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs. XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

Mrs. XXXX XXXX XXXX

Mother/appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Reviewing RPD Decision) / Appeal Decision (rad Confirmation/dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the appellants
  2. 2 Whether key documentary evidence (audit reports, court document, affidavits, police reports, lawyer's letter) was authentic
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness required additional accommodations for a vulnerable claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD independently reviewed the record and found that multiple central documents were demonstrably irregular, internally inconsistent or likely fabricated and that corroborative evidence was absent; those fraudulent documents fatally undermined the appellants' credibility on the core allegations, so the RPD did not err in rejecting the refugee and protection claims; RAD confirms RPD under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) IRPA the decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated May 23, 2018 is confirmed
  • The appeal is dismissed