MB9-28669

MB9-28669

The RAD confirmed the RPD's credibility findings: material contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions between the BOC Form and oral testimony, together with vague and evasive testimony, sufficiently undermined the appellants' written account and justified drawing negative inferences and discounting unreliable police documents; although new COVID-19 evidence was admitted, it did not establish an individualized risk of persecution or a Convention-ground based denial of healthcare under IRPA s.97(1), so the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB9-28669
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Risk Assessment Under COVID 19, Weight of Documentary Evidence, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Risk Assessment Under COVID 19 Weight of Documentary Evidence Convention Refugee Determination

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in its credibility assessment of the appellants
  2. 2 Whether new evidence (Exhibits A and B) is admissible under IRPA s.110(4) and RAD Rule 29 and applicable jurisprudence
  3. 3 Whether appellants established a serious possibility of persecution or a risk under IRPA s.97(1), including in the context of COVID-19

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's credibility findings: material contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions between the BOC Form and oral testimony, together with vague and evasive testimony, sufficiently undermined the appellants' written account and justified drawing negative inferences and discounting unreliable police documents; although new COVID-19 evidence was admitted, it did not establish an individualized risk of persecution or a Convention-ground based denial of healthcare under IRPA s.97(1), so the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and the RPD determination confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
  • RAD allows the appellants' Rule 29 application to admit Exhibits A and B for the purposes of the appeal