MC2-18056

MC2-18056

The RAD confirmed the RPD's credibility findings because material contradictions and omissions, the appellant's inability to explain his alleged role in arrests, and the lack of corroborating evidence undermined the central allegations; accordingly the appellants failed to establish they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Citation
MC2-18056
Parties
Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (rad Reasons)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (male)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (female)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (rad Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its assessment of the appellants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether the appellants qualify as Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's credibility findings because material contradictions and omissions, the appellant's inability to explain his alleged role in arrests, and the lack of corroborating evidence undermined the central allegations; accordingly the appellants failed to establish they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination confirmed that the appellants are not Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA and not persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA