TB8-13058

TB8-13058

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants were found not credible on material allegations (omissions and inconsistent documentary testimony), the new evidence was either not new or had no persuasive link to the appellants' specific circumstances, a psychological report could not remedy credibility defects, and the appellants therefore failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or a balance of probabilities risk on return to Hungary.

Citation
TB8-13058
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From RPD Decision Dated May 9, 2018
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Admissibility of New Evidence, Country Condition Evidence, Past Persecution, Prospective Risk, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment State Protection Admissibility of New Evidence Country Condition Evidence Past Persecution +2 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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From RPD Decision Dated May 9, 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants were credible witnesses
  2. 2 Whether appellants established past persecution
  3. 3 Whether appellants face a prospective risk on return to Hungary

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellants were found not credible on material allegations (omissions and inconsistent documentary testimony), the new evidence was either not new or had no persuasive link to the appellants' specific circumstances, a psychological report could not remedy credibility defects, and the appellants therefore failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or a balance of probabilities risk on return to Hungary.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated May 9, 2018 is confirmed