MB9-06656

MB9-06656

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants' inconsistent dates, material omissions (notably failure to disclose central facts about alleged religious practice), evasive and implausible explanations, and contradictions with documents justified adverse credibility findings; consequently the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a risk on return and the appeal was dismissed under the correctness standard.

Citation
MB9-06656
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the RPD err in its assessment of the appellants' credibility?
  2. 2 Whether omissions and inconsistencies in the BOC and testimony defeat the refugee claim
  3. 3 Whether the appellants meet the test for Convention refugee or for persons in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants' inconsistent dates, material omissions (notably failure to disclose central facts about alleged religious practice), evasive and implausible explanations, and contradictions with documents justified adverse credibility findings; consequently the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a risk on return and the appeal was dismissed under the correctness standard.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision of March 19, 2019 confirmed