MB5-04183

MB5-04183

The RAD confirmed the RPD: on the whole record the claimant failed to establish credibility on central facts (material omissions regarding death threats and spouse fleeing, implausible career and training given alleged targeting, unexplained return to Rwanda after alleged torture, insufficient corroboration from medical certificate and documentary evidence), and thus failed to prove on the balance of probabilities a subjective and objective fear of persecution or that his life would likely be at risk; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
MB5-04183
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Convention Refugee Definition, Person in Need of Protection, Standard of Review, Omissions in Basis of Claim, Medical Evidence Probative Value
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Convention Refugee Definition Person in Need of Protection Standard of Review Omissions in Basis of Claim +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility finding was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: on the whole record the claimant failed to establish credibility on central facts (material omissions regarding death threats and spouse fleeing, implausible career and training given alleged targeting, unexplained return to Rwanda after alleged torture, insufficient corroboration from medical certificate and documentary evidence), and thus failed to prove on the balance of probabilities a subjective and objective fear of persecution or that his life would likely be at risk; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed