TC0-02923

TC0-02923

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD, after independent review, found the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonably open on the record given inconsistencies and documentary contradictions (notably written tax documentation), the alleged detentions were administrative or procedural rather than persecution tied to a Convention ground, and the Appellants failed to establish a real prospect of persecution or serious harm on a Convention ground.

Citation
TC0-02923
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal; Reasons for Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed: Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Detention as Persecution, Imputed Political Opinion, Delay in Claiming
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Nexus to Convention Grounds Detention as Persecution Imputed Political Opinion Delay in Claiming

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal; Reasons for Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RPD erred in assessing credibility as determinative
  2. 2 Whether alleged harms have nexus to Convention grounds (religion, ethnicity, political opinion)
  3. 3 Whether detentions amounted to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD, after independent review, found the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonably open on the record given inconsistencies and documentary contradictions (notably written tax documentation), the alleged detentions were administrative or procedural rather than persecution tied to a Convention ground, and the Appellants failed to establish a real prospect of persecution or serious harm on a Convention ground.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed: Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.