MC1-08187

MC1-08187

The RAD confirmed the RPD's core finding that the appellants' BOC forms displayed numerous and striking similarities to 23 unrelated Iranian claims which displaced the presumption of truth; the appellants failed, on a balance of probabilities, to provide a satisfactory explanation that their written accounts were genuine; the subsequent evidence of baptism and conversion in Canada did not, given overall credibility findings and lack of objective corroboration, establish a well-founded fear of persecution on return; the female appellant's claim as a woman was incidental, not supported subjectively or objectively, and therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees under section 96...

Citation
MC1-08187
Parties
Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Male Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Refugee Status Determination, Religious Persecution, Particular Social Group, Refugee Sur Place, Apostasy
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Refugee Status Determination Religious Persecution Particular Social Group Refugee Sur Place +1 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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Male Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellants' Basis of Claim forms not credible due to similarities with other BOCs
  2. 2 Whether the appellants' baptism and alleged conversion in Canada establish a well-founded fear of persecution (refugee sur place)
  3. 3 Whether the female appellant has a well-founded fear as a member of the particular social group 'women'

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's core finding that the appellants' BOC forms displayed numerous and striking similarities to 23 unrelated Iranian claims which displaced the presumption of truth; the appellants failed, on a balance of probabilities, to provide a satisfactory explanation that their written accounts were genuine; the subsequent evidence of baptism and conversion in Canada did not, given overall credibility findings and lack of objective corroboration, establish a well-founded fear of persecution on return; the female appellant's claim as a woman was incidental, not supported subjectively or objectively, and therefore the appellants are neither Convention refugees under section 96...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination confirmed