MB9-11088

MB9-11088

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings based on inconsistent, confused and changeable testimony and documentary irregularities; independent documents (Notice to Appear, Wanted poster, police complaint) lacked sufficient probative value or authenticity; the Appellants' delay in claiming undermined their subjective fear; and relinquishing the disputed land was a reasonable, available option that would eliminate the asserted risk — therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-11088
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX; Minor Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Division to Refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad Reasons and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Documentary Corroboration, Delay in Claiming Asylum, Internal Flight Alternative/relocation, Relinquishment of Property as Risk Mitigation
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Documentary Corroboration Delay in Claiming Asylum Internal Flight Alternative/relocation +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Division to Refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (rad Reasons and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its assessment of the Appellants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether documentary evidence was independent and probative despite a general credibility finding
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant could reasonably be expected to relinquish his land to avoid risk

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings based on inconsistent, confused and changeable testimony and documentary irregularities; independent documents (Notice to Appear, Wanted poster, police complaint) lacked sufficient probative value or authenticity; the Appellants' delay in claiming undermined their subjective fear; and relinquishing the disputed land was a reasonable, available option that would eliminate the asserted risk — therefore the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

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