TB5-03416

TB5-03416

The RAD confirms the RPD's negative credibility finding and dismisses the appeal because the appellant omitted pivotal dates from his BOC despite guidance and legal assistance, offered unsatisfactory explanations for a substantial delay in claiming refugee protection, failed to provide corroborating objective evidence that refusal of a chieftaincy exposes him to persecution, and relied on an uncorroborated, vague statutory declaration; on the balance of probabilities the claim is not credible and was fabricated to remain in Canada.

Citation
TB5-03416
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse/co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Dependent Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Determination on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division (no New Evidence; No S.110(6) Hearing Requested)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Delay in Claiming Refugee Protection, Country Condition Evidence, Chieftaincy and Non State Actors, Weight of Witness/statutory Declarations, Role and Standard of Review of the RAD
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Delay in Claiming Refugee Protection Country Condition Evidence Chieftaincy and Non State Actors Weight of Witness/statutory Declarations +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse/co Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Dependent Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Determination on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division (no New Evidence; No S.110(6) Hearing Requested)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by the record
  2. 2 Whether the delay of over three years in claiming refugee protection undermines subjective fear
  3. 3 Whether objective country evidence corroborates that refusal of a chieftaincy position exposes a person to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD's negative credibility finding and dismisses the appeal because the appellant omitted pivotal dates from his BOC despite guidance and legal assistance, offered unsatisfactory explanations for a substantial delay in claiming refugee protection, failed to provide corroborating objective evidence that refusal of a chieftaincy exposes him to persecution, and relied on an uncorroborated, vague statutory declaration; on the balance of probabilities the claim is not credible and was fabricated to remain in Canada.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
  • Refugee Protection Division determination confirmed that the appellant, his spouse and two minor children are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection