MC0-09960

MC0-09960

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD reasonably found the male appellant not credible due to material omissions and inconsistent statements central to his claim, and reasonably found that the female appellant and minor child failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or that they would face risks under section 97 IRPA in Haiti or Brazil; the benefit of the doubt did not apply and the best interests of the child did not discharge the evidentiary burden.

Citation
MC0-09960
Parties
Appellant (designated Representative): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons and Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Refugee Protection Claim, Best Interests of the Child, Section 97 IRPA Risks, Exclusion Under Section 1 E, Benefit of the Doubt
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Child Protection Credibility Assessment Refugee Protection Claim Best Interests of the Child Section 97 IRPA Risks +2 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (designated Representative)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons and Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the RPD err in assessing the male appellant's credibility?
  2. 2 Did the RPD err in assessing prospective risk to the female appellant and her daughter by reason of membership in the social group of "women"?
  3. 3 Did the RPD err in concluding the minor child faces no serious possibility of persecution or section 97 IRPA risks in Brazil?

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD reasonably found the male appellant not credible due to material omissions and inconsistent statements central to his claim, and reasonably found that the female appellant and minor child failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or that they would face risks under section 97 IRPA in Haiti or Brazil; the benefit of the doubt did not apply and the best interests of the child did not discharge the evidentiary burden.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

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