MB8-20345

MB8-20345

The RAD concluded that material omissions, contradictions and inconsistent official documents undermined the appellant's credibility to such an extent that the presumption of truth attached to her sworn testimony was reversed; therefore the RPD's adverse credibility findings were correct and the refugee claim was rightly rejected under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB8-20345
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Division Decision Under Review) / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellant found not to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Documentary Evidence, Country Conditions, Gender Related Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination Documentary Evidence Country Conditions Gender Related Persecution

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Division Decision Under Review) / Refugee Appeal Division Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Refugee Protection Division err in its assessment of the appellant's credibility?
  2. 2 Whether documentary inconsistencies and omissions justify reversing the presumption of truth of sworn testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded that material omissions, contradictions and inconsistent official documents undermined the appellant's credibility to such an extent that the presumption of truth attached to her sworn testimony was reversed; therefore the RPD's adverse credibility findings were correct and the refugee claim was rightly rejected under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellant found not to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.