MC0-08814

MC0-08814

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings and dismissed the appeal because the principal appellant's testimony was vague, evasive, inconsistent and lacked basic, expectable knowledge of land-restitution mechanisms and laws; discrepancies with the police report and absence of corroborative documentary evidence meant the appellants failed to discharge their burden under IRPA s.111(1)(a) to establish refugee status or need for protection.

Citation
MC0-08814
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (associate): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Final Decision on Credibility and Risk Assessment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Risk Assessment, Application of Maldonado
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Risk Assessment Application of Maldonado

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (associate)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Final Decision on Credibility and Risk Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in assessing the appellants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to apply Maldonado principles in credibility assessment
  3. 3 Whether the RPD conducted an impermissibly microscopic analysis when drawing adverse credibility inferences

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings and dismissed the appeal because the principal appellant's testimony was vague, evasive, inconsistent and lacked basic, expectable knowledge of land-restitution mechanisms and laws; discrepancies with the police report and absence of corroborative documentary evidence meant the appellants failed to discharge their burden under IRPA s.111(1)(a) to establish refugee status or need for protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed by RAD
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated June 25, 2020 confirmed