MB9-15571

MB9-15571

The RAD affirms the RPD: credibility findings were justified based on significant contradictions and omissions (inconsistent testimony versus written basis of claim, inadequate knowledge of alleged persecutors, unexplained delays and repeated returns, lack of medical corroboration and probative corroborative documentation), and therefore appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities they are Convention refugees under section 96 or persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.

Citation
MB9-15571
Parties
Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division)
Outcome
appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Asylum Claim, Persecution, Gender Based Persecution, Corroboration, Delay in Claiming Protection, Non Refoulement
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Credibility Assessment Asylum Claim Persecution Gender Based Persecution Corroboration +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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (female)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (male)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether RPD erred in rejecting appellants' credibility
  2. 2 whether female appellant faces prospective risk in DRC as lone woman and NGO member
  3. 3 whether omissions and lack of corroboration justify negative credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirms the RPD: credibility findings were justified based on significant contradictions and omissions (inconsistent testimony versus written basis of claim, inadequate knowledge of alleged persecutors, unexplained delays and repeated returns, lack of medical corroboration and probative corroborative documentation), and therefore appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities they are Convention refugees under section 96 or persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • The Refugee Appeal Division dismisses the appeals and confirms the Refugee Protection Division's determination that the appellants are not Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA or persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.