MB9-07008

MB9-07008

The appeal is dismissed because the Refugee Protection Division reasonably found the appellants not credible on central elements of their claims; the RPD acted within procedural fairness, properly applied Guideline 4 in substance, and correctly drew negative inferences from contradictions, omissions and lack of corroboration, thereby justifying refusal of refugee protection.

Citation
MB9-07008
Parties
Principal Appellant: Principal appellant (name redacted); Associate Appellant: Associate appellant (spouse, name redacted); Minor Appellant: Minor appellant (daughter, name redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Natural Justice, Guideline 4 (women), Political Opinion, Section 97 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Gender Based Persecution Natural Justice Guideline 4 (women) Political Opinion +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal appellant (name redacted)

Principal Appellant

Associate appellant (spouse, name redacted)

Associate Appellant

Minor appellant (daughter, name redacted)

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) breached natural justice
  2. 2 Whether the RPD properly applied Guideline 4 regarding gender-related persecution
  3. 3 Whether the principal appellant was credible regarding membership/contributions to political party and prospective risk

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Refugee Protection Division reasonably found the appellants not credible on central elements of their claims; the RPD acted within procedural fairness, properly applied Guideline 4 in substance, and correctly drew negative inferences from contradictions, omissions and lack of corroboration, thereby justifying refusal of refugee protection.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee Appeal Division dismisses the appeal and confirms the Refugee Protection Division decision