MC0-05384

MC0-05384

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants' essential allegations were undermined by inconsistent, vague and uncorroborated testimony; the post‑RPD medical/forensic report was not admitted because it could reasonably have been obtained and presented to the RPD and does not corroborate the key factual assertions; the appellants failed to discharge the burden to show a personal risk of persecution, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MC0-05384
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (wife): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (child): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (child): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division From Refugee Protection Division Decision / Decision on Appeal Reasons and Dismissal (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD affirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admission of New Evidence, Risk Assessment, Standard of Review, Benefit of the Doubt
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admission of New Evidence Risk Assessment Standard of Review Benefit of the Doubt

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

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (wife)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (child)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (child)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division From Refugee Protection Division Decision / Decision on Appeal Reasons and Dismissal (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether the RAD should admit a post‑RPD medical/forensic report as new evidence
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellants' prospective risk of persecution in Colombia

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants' essential allegations were undermined by inconsistent, vague and uncorroborated testimony; the post‑RPD medical/forensic report was not admitted because it could reasonably have been obtained and presented to the RPD and does not corroborate the key factual assertions; the appellants failed to discharge the burden to show a personal risk of persecution, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD affirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision of February 5, 2020 confirmed