MB5-00882

MB5-00882

The RAD affirmed the RPD's adverse credibility finding: the Appellant provided unclear and inconsistent testimony, lacked probative corroboration, admitted travel misrepresentation, and country conditions did not establish a real risk. Because the Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities, he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA, and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Citation
MB5-00882
Parties
Appellant/person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision on Appeal; No New Evidence or Oral Hearing Requested
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Convention Refugee Determination, Risk of Persecution, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Convention Refugee Determination Risk of Persecution Country Conditions

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant/person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision on Appeal; No New Evidence or Oral Hearing Requested

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant meets the definition of a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirmed the RPD's adverse credibility finding: the Appellant provided unclear and inconsistent testimony, lacked probative corroboration, admitted travel misrepresentation, and country conditions did not establish a real risk. Because the Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities, he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA, and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division decision dated January 5, 2015 confirmed; Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection