MC0-02687

MC0-02687

The RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified by material contradictions, omissions of essential facts (agent of harm), inconsistent conduct (continuing at risk employment, failing to take precautions, leaving family behind), and self-serving documents; therefore appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MC0-02687
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal: Angelica Pantiru; Counsel for the Minister: N/A; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Panel Member: Me Love Saint-Fleur
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Ruling
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Standard of Review, Evidence and Documentary Probative Value, Negative Inference From Omissions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Standard of Review Evidence and Documentary Probative Value +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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Angelica Pantiru

Counsel for the Persons Who Are the Subject of the Appeal

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Me Love Saint-Fleur

Panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether appellants established on a balance of probabilities that they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether the RAD must apply the correctness standard in reviewing RPD decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified by material contradictions, omissions of essential facts (agent of harm), inconsistent conduct (continuing at risk employment, failing to take precautions, leaving family behind), and self-serving documents; therefore appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RPD determination is confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.