MC0-00537

MC0-00537

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD's adverse credibility findings—based on real and central inconsistencies and untimely, important omissions—were justified and fatal to the female appellant's claim; consequently neither appellant established a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 IRPA nor the requisite personal risk under s.97(1).

Citation
MC0-00537
Parties
Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Appellant (male, Minor) Represented by Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Reasons and Decision (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection, Risk of Persecution, Gender Based Persecution, Risk of Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Human Rights Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection Risk of Persecution +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Appellant (female)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (male, Minor) Represented by Female Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Reasons and Decision (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the female appellant
  2. 2 whether appellants established a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 IRPA
  3. 3 whether appellants demonstrated risk of torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment under s.97(1) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD's adverse credibility findings—based on real and central inconsistencies and untimely, important omissions—were justified and fatal to the female appellant's claim; consequently neither appellant established a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 IRPA nor the requisite personal risk under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • The Refugee Protection Division's determination is confirmed: appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.