TB6-10859

TB6-10859

The RAD confirmed the RPD: adverse credibility findings (material inconsistencies in testimony, failure to use available visas, implausible explanations, lack of knowledge about alleged organization) were reasonable and supported discounting the Appellants' evidence; untested corroboration and the police diary did not overcome the credibility defects; country-condition materials showed harassment and sporadic violence but not a likelihood of persecution for this family profile, therefore the Appellants failed to meet the burden to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk on a balance of probabilities.

Citation
TB6-10859
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse / Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child (us Citizen): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Decision on Merits and Confirmation of RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Risk Assessment Based on Claimant Profile, Country Condition Evidence, Corroboration of Evidence, Standard of Review, Application of IRPA Sections
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Risk Assessment Based on Claimant Profile Country Condition Evidence Corroboration of Evidence Standard of Review +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse / Female Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child (us Citizen)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Decision on Merits and Confirmation of RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in adverse credibility findings regarding the Appellants' allegations of past persecution
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to assess the risk the Appellants face on account of their Hindu religious profile
  3. 3 Whether documentary corroboration (letters, police general diary) was sufficient to overcome adverse credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD: adverse credibility findings (material inconsistencies in testimony, failure to use available visas, implausible explanations, lack of knowledge about alleged organization) were reasonable and supported discounting the Appellants' evidence; untested corroboration and the police diary did not overcome the credibility defects; country-condition materials showed harassment and sporadic violence but not a likelihood of persecution for this family profile, therefore the Appellants failed to meet the burden to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk on a balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • RAD confirms the decision of the Refugee Protection Division
  • Appeals dismissed