MB9-15381

MB9-15381

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found the Appellant lacked credibility due to material contradictions and omissions (notably between her U.S. asylum narrative and Canadian Basis of Claim, and inconsistent accounts of dates, location, number of perpetrators and police reports), and having applied Guideline #4 and reviewed objective country documentation the RPD reasonably concluded there was no serious possibility of persecution as a woman and no need for protection; RAD, on correctness review, agreed and found no breach of procedural fairness.

Citation
MB9-15381
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Reasons for Decision on Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Convention Refugee Determination, Section 97 Need for Protection, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Gender Based Persecution Convention Refugee Determination Section 97 Need for Protection Procedural Fairness

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Reasons for Decision on Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant's claim was credible given contradictions between her Canadian and U.S. applications
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant faces persecution as a single woman on return to Haiti (Guideline #4 analysis)
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant is a person in need of protection pursuant to s.97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RPD correctly found the Appellant lacked credibility due to material contradictions and omissions (notably between her U.S. asylum narrative and Canadian Basis of Claim, and inconsistent accounts of dates, location, number of perpetrators and police reports), and having applied Guideline #4 and reviewed objective country documentation the RPD reasonably concluded there was no serious possibility of persecution as a woman and no need for protection; RAD, on correctness review, agreed and found no breach of procedural fairness.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA