MC1-05199

MC1-05199

The RAD affirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings—material omissions and an apocryphal or inconsistent UNITA membership card undermined the appellants' account—therefore the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution under section 96 or the balance of probabilities risk under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA, and the RPD's decision was confirmed.

Citation
MC1-05199
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Article 1 E Exclusion, Subsection 97(1) IRPA, Basis of Claim Amendments, Particular Social Group
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Article 1 E Exclusion Subsection 97(1) IRPA Basis of Claim Amendments Particular Social Group

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

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellants' credibility regarding their fear in Angola
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its assessment of prospective fear including fear from in-laws and social group membership
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to analyze risks under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings—material omissions and an apocryphal or inconsistent UNITA membership card undermined the appellants' account—therefore the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution under section 96 or the balance of probabilities risk under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA, and the RPD's decision was confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; determination of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA