MC0-09472

MC0-09472

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings because the principal appellant's testimony was vague, evasive, contradictory and lacked satisfactory explanations for central allegations; credibility was determinative and, on the balance of probabilities, appellants did not establish a risk under the Convention or need for protection, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MC0-09472
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (minor Child): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (minor Child): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision (reasons) by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Procedural Fairness, Presumption of Truthfulness, Refusal of Refugee Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Procedural Fairness Presumption of Truthfulness Refusal of Refugee Protection

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (minor Child)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (minor Child)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision (reasons) by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD properly applied the presumption of truthfulness and Maldonado
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings because the principal appellant's testimony was vague, evasive, contradictory and lacked satisfactory explanations for central allegations; credibility was determinative and, on the balance of probabilities, appellants did not establish a risk under the Convention or need for protection, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the RPD's determination.