MB9-06129

MB9-06129

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the adverse credibility finding was reasonable and dispositive: the appellant provided no corroborating documents, repeatedly destroyed or lacked knowledge of core documentary proof, gave hesitant and inconsistent testimony on essential elements (amount of debt, property ownership,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MB9-06129
Parties
Appellant: Foungbe Berete; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Oral Hearing Under S.110(6) IRPA, Identity/document Authenticity, Protection From Non State Actors, Property/dispute With Creditors
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Oral Hearing Under S.110(6) IRPA Identity/document Authenticity Protection From Non State Actors Property/dispute With Creditors

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Foungbe Berete

Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility finding was correct
  2. 2 Whether the RAD must hold an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the appellant qualifies as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the adverse credibility finding was reasonable and dispositive: the appellant provided no corroborating documents, repeatedly destroyed or lacked knowledge of core documentary proof, gave hesitant and inconsistent testimony on essential elements (amount of debt, property ownership, who occupies the house), failed to pursue available local remedies, and presented identity/document issues; no new admissible evidence justified an oral hearing; therefore appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD decision of March 15, 2019 affirmed