MB9-01390

MB9-01390

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants' essential facts were rendered not credible by significant contradictions and omissions; the newly admitted flight itinerary did not raise a serious, central credibility issue or require an oral hearing; the female appellant did not establish a serious possibility of persecution as a member of the group "women" or on any Convention ground; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Citation
MB9-01390
Parties
Appellant: Female appellant (name redacted); Appellant: Male appellant (brother) (name redacted); Co Claimant: Female appellant's husband (co-claimant) (name redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by the Refugee Appeal Division on Appeal From RPD Rejection
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Membership in a Particular Social Group, Gender Related Persecution, Admissibility of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Exclusion Under Clause 1 F(a)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Membership in a Particular Social Group Gender Related Persecution Admissibility of New 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Female appellant (name redacted)

Appellant

Male appellant (brother) (name redacted)

Appellant

Female appellant's husband (co-claimant) (name redacted)

Co Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by the Refugee Appeal Division on Appeal From RPD Rejection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing credibility of the appellants' allegations
  2. 2 Whether the female appellant has a well-founded fear as a member of the particular social group "women"
  3. 3 Whether new evidence filed on appeal should be admitted and whether an oral hearing is required

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants' essential facts were rendered not credible by significant contradictions and omissions; the newly admitted flight itinerary did not raise a serious, central credibility issue or require an oral hearing; the female appellant did not establish a serious possibility of persecution as a member of the group "women" or on any Convention ground; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division decision dated November 28, 2018 confirmed