MB9-07509

MB9-07509

The RAD dismissed the appeals and confirmed the RPD decision because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified by significant, unexplained omissions and inconsistencies central to the claim; the psychological report was admissible but not determinative; the female appellant failed to prove a serious possibility of gender-based persecution; and the US-citizen child did not face persecution or cruel and unusual treatment.

Citation
MB9-07509
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant (son): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant (son, US Citizen): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister; Panel Member: Me Patricia O'Connor; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (rad)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Admissibility of New Evidence, Risk to Minor, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Credibility Assessment Gender Based Persecution Admissibility of New Evidence Risk to Minor +1 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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant (son)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant (son, US Citizen)

Minister

Respondent

Me Patricia O'Connor

Panel Member

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Adverse credibility finding based on omissions and inconsistencies in the basis of claim (BOC)
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred by failing to consider gender-based persecution of the female appellant
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of psychological report as new evidence on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeals and confirmed the RPD decision because the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified by significant, unexplained omissions and inconsistencies central to the claim; the psychological report was admissible but not determinative; the female appellant failed to prove a serious possibility of gender-based persecution; and the US-citizen child did not face persecution or cruel and unusual treatment.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection; RPD decision confirmed pursuant to ss.111(1)(a) IRPA