MB9-20340

MB9-20340

The RAD confirmed the RPD because material and significant inconsistencies and omissions in the appellants' evidence rebutted the presumption of truthfulness; there was no reasonable explanation for these credibility concerns, the Gender Guidelines were applied or not engaged on the facts, and the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or need for protection on return.

Citation
MB9-20340
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant Mother: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant Niece: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division From Refugee Protection Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Refugee Status Determination, Standard of Review, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Gender Based Persecution Refugee Status Determination Standard of Review Burden of Proof

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant Mother

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant Niece

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division From Refugee Protection Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to apply the Gender Guidelines
  3. 3 Whether appellants established nexus to Convention grounds or risk of persecution on return

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because material and significant inconsistencies and omissions in the appellants' evidence rebutted the presumption of truthfulness; there was no reasonable explanation for these credibility concerns, the Gender Guidelines were applied or not engaged on the facts, and the appellants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or need for protection on return.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated July 25, 2019, confirmed