VC0-02920

VC0-02920

The RAD confirms the RPD decision: the appellant's denunciation of a consular employee did not constitute a protected political opinion and the appellants failed to prove prospective risk because their core allegations were not credible due to significant contradictions, implausibilities and the absence of reasonable corroboration (police report, article/journalist affidavit); therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
VC0-02920
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed and RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Political Opinion, Persecution, Prospective Risk, Corroboration, Burden of Proof, Abduction, Threats
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Political Opinion Persecution Prospective Risk Corroboration +3 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 5 Authorities cited 13 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 XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether denunciation of corruption at a foreign consulate constitutes expression of political opinion for Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether appellants established credibility regarding alleged abduction and threats
  3. 3 Whether lack of corroborating evidence (police report, journalist affidavit, article) properly undermines claim

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD decision: the appellant's denunciation of a consular employee did not constitute a protected political opinion and the appellants failed to prove prospective risk because their core allegations were not credible due to significant contradictions, implausibilities and the absence of reasonable corroboration (police report, article/journalist affidavit); therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed and RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • The determination of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA nor persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA