TB8-03804

TB8-03804

The appeals are dismissed because the principal Appellant's evidence contained material and unexplained inconsistencies and omissions between his Basis of Claim, testimony and supporting affidavits, his claimed protective responses were not credible, corroborative affidavits lacked probative detail, the psychotherapist's single‑session report carried limited weight, and consequently the Appellants failed to establish their claims on a balance of probabilities; therefore no s.97 analysis was required and the RPD determination was confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB8-03804
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD determination confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Refugee Protection (s.97), Standard of Review, Evidentiary Weight of Medical/psychotherapy Reports, Corroboration and Affidavits
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Refugee Protection (s.97) Standard of Review Evidentiary Weight of Medical/psychotherapy Reports Corroboration and Affidavits

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RPD erred in finding omissions/inconsistencies in principal Appellant's testimony regarding 2016 threats
  2. 2 Whether RPD erred in finding omissions/inconsistencies regarding 2017 encounter
  3. 3 Whether RPD erred in assessing principal Appellant's lack of protective action as undermining subjective fear

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals are dismissed because the principal Appellant's evidence contained material and unexplained inconsistencies and omissions between his Basis of Claim, testimony and supporting affidavits, his claimed protective responses were not credible, corroborative affidavits lacked probative detail, the psychotherapist's single‑session report carried limited weight, and consequently the Appellants failed to establish their claims on a balance of probabilities; therefore no s.97 analysis was required and the RPD determination was confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD determination confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed and RPD decision confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA