MB8-15860

MB8-15860

The RPD's negative credibility finding is upheld because the Appellant gave material and central contradictory evidence and omissions (identification of perpetrators, timing of threats, and prior residence), which undermined the foundational event of the claim (the 2002 fire); consequently the Appellant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that he is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB8-15860
Parties
Appellant / Person Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Procedural Fairness Standard of Review

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Subject of the Appeal

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the Appellant not credible
  2. 2 Whether omissions and contradictions in the record vitiate probative value of supporting documents
  3. 3 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness by not explicitly referencing counsel's written submissions

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's negative credibility finding is upheld because the Appellant gave material and central contradictory evidence and omissions (identification of perpetrators, timing of threats, and prior residence), which undermined the foundational event of the claim (the 2002 fire); consequently the Appellant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that he is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated June 21, 2018 confirmed
  • Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act