TB9-12379

TB9-12379

The RAD dismissed the appeal, confirming the RPD: the aggregate of omissions, material inconsistencies and failure to provide reasonably obtainable evidence struck at the core of the claim so as to justify adverse credibility findings; documentary materials submitted did not independently establish persecution; and objective country evidence did not show a serious possibility of persecution for the appellants in their home state nor a gender‑based risk for the female appellant.

Citation
TB9-12379
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Prospective Risk, Religious Persecution, Political Opinion, Gender Based Claims, Negative Inference From Omissions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Credibility Assessment Prospective Risk Religious Persecution Political Opinion +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding overriding credibility concerns
  2. 2 Whether the appellants established a prospective risk of persecution in India as Tamil Muslims
  3. 3 Whether the female appellant established a gender-based risk

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal, confirming the RPD: the aggregate of omissions, material inconsistencies and failure to provide reasonably obtainable evidence struck at the core of the claim so as to justify adverse credibility findings; documentary materials submitted did not independently establish persecution; and objective country evidence did not show a serious possibility of persecution for the appellants in their home state nor a gender‑based risk for the female appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

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